{
  "id": 8524475,
  "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. BEVERLY SPARKS ATWELL",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Atwell",
  "decision_date": "1983-06-21",
  "docket_number": "No. 8221SC1122",
  "first_page": "652",
  "last_page": "653",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "62 N.C. App. 652"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "N.C. Ct. App.",
    "id": 14983,
    "name": "North Carolina Court of Appeals"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 5,
    "name_long": "North Carolina",
    "name": "N.C."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "62 N.C. App. 643",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8524448
      ],
      "year": 1983,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/62/0643-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 219,
    "char_count": 2906,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.828,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.2055347628375245
    },
    "sha256": "eee4bb907cce8fd0f77de8c2a332554720805140247f20e1fc972379d014ef3d",
    "simhash": "1:e853b2657b7b190b",
    "word_count": 483
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:38:59.213578+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Chief Judge Vaughn and Judge Hedrick concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. BEVERLY SPARKS ATWELL"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "ARNOLD, Judge.\nWe first note that this appeal raised the same question that we decided in an accompanying case, State v. Atwell, 62 N.C. App. 643, --- S.E. 2d --- (No. 8221SC1059; filed 21 June 1983). The defendant there was the husband of the defendant in this case and the facts in both cases are substantially similar.\nThe same application for a search warrant that we upheld in Glenn Atwell\u2019s case is attacked by the defendant here. For the reasons announced in that opinion, we again hold that the application and search warrant were valid.\nWhether appeal was proper from denial of the motion to suppress, which was an issue in Glenn Atwell\u2019s case, is not an issue here because the defendant\u2019s guilty plea in this case was not the result of plea negotiations. Glenn Atwell\u2019s guilty plea occurred only after plea negotiations with the District Attorney\u2019s office. The question of if he gave notice of his intention to appeal from denial of the suppression motion before plea negotiations were finalized was crucial in his case. That question is not before us here.\nFinally, we note that the briefs of the defendants in this case, and in Glenn Atwell\u2019s case, are nearly identical even though they are signed by different attorneys. The statement of the facts and arguments are reproduced almost verbatim.\nAlthough this practice is not prohibited by our rules or the law, we believe that defense attorneys should prepare briefs and records with care to state the strongest arguments of each individual defendant. Effective arguments were made here in the defendant\u2019s brief, but irrelevant facts involving Glenn Atwell are mentioned throughout the record and the defendant\u2019s brief. We discourage this practice in the future.\nBecause it was correct to deny the defendant\u2019s motion to suppress for the reasons stated in our opinion in Glenn Atwell\u2019s case, we affirm the trial judge\u2019s 20 May 1982 order.\nAffirmed.\nChief Judge Vaughn and Judge Hedrick concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "ARNOLD, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney General Edmisten, by Special Deputy Attorney General Charles J. Murray, for the State.",
      "Daniel S. Johnson for the defendant-appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. BEVERLY SPARKS ATWELL\nNo. 8221SC1122\n(Filed 21 June 1983)\nAPPEAL by defendant from Albright, Judge. Judgment entered 7 June 1982 in Superior Court, Forsyth County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 13 April 1983.\nThe defendant pled guilty on 7 June 1982 to felonious possession of cocaine, which is punishable under G.S. 90-95(a)(3). She was given a two-year sentence which was suspended for three years. She was placed on supervised probation and ordered to pay a $5,000 fine and court costs.\nHer motion to suppress evidence seized as a result of the execution of a search warrant was denied on 20 May 1982. She filed that motion with codefendant Glenn Douglas Atwell, her husband.\nThe defendant gave a timely notice of appeal from the denial of her motion to suppress to this Court.\nAttorney General Edmisten, by Special Deputy Attorney General Charles J. Murray, for the State.\nDaniel S. Johnson for the defendant-appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0652-01",
  "first_page_order": 684,
  "last_page_order": 685
}