{
  "id": 8523337,
  "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. TERRY L. RICHARDSON",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Richardson",
  "decision_date": "1989-12-05",
  "docket_number": "No. 8819SC1409",
  "first_page": "508",
  "last_page": "509",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "96 N.C. App. 508"
    }
  ],
  "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": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 164,
    "char_count": 2125,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.716,
    "sha256": "b28c768d2601ce2dfd15d62bf832951085485daa13592b0152ed2eed89e24d91",
    "simhash": "1:8b3f6da3a20f9587",
    "word_count": 361
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:28:35.242103+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges Arnold and Becton concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. TERRY L. RICHARDSON"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "COZORT, Judge.\nThis appeal addresses the question of whether a defendant who is charged with an infraction and admits responsibility in the district court has a right to appeal for a trial de novo in superior court. We hold that the defendant does not, and we affirm the trial court.\nDefendant was charged with operating a motor vehicle at a speed of 47 m.p.h. in a 35 m.p.h. zone. He signed a waiver of his right to a trial, admitted responsibility, and paid a fine of $10.00 and $40.00 in costs. Within ten days of the district court\u2019s acceptance of the plea, defendant filed a notice of appeal to superior court. He later filed a motion to dismiss for an alleged violation of the Speedy Trial Act, N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7\u00a7 15A-701 through 15A-704 (since repealed). The State thereafter filed a Motion to Vacate Appeal, contending that the trial court did not have jurisdiction. The trial court granted the State\u2019s motion. We affirm.\nN.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 15A-1115 provides:\n(a) Appeal of District Court Decision. \u2014 A person who denies responsibility and is found responsible for an infraction in the district court, within 10 days of the hearing, may appeal the decision to the criminal division of the superior court for a hearing de novo. (Emphasis added.)\nThere is no provision for an appeal from an admission of responsibility.\nAffirmed.\nJudges Arnold and Becton concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "COZORT, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney General Lacy H. Thornburg, by Assistant Attorney General William B. Ray, for the State.",
      "Ottway Burton, P.A., for defendant appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. TERRY L. RICHARDSON\nNo. 8819SC1409\n(Filed 5 December 1989)\nCriminal Law \u00a7 146.5 (NCI3d) \u2014 infraction \u2014guilty plea \u2014 no right to appeal for trial de novo in superior court\nA defendant who is charged with a traffic infraction and admits responsibility in the district court has no right to appeal for a trial de novo in superior court. N.C.G.S. \u00a7 15A-1115.\nAm Jur 2d, Automobiles and Highway Traffic \u00a7 392; Criminal Law \u00a7 490.\nAPPEAL by defendant from order of Judge William Z. Wood entered 10 November 1988 in RANDOLPH County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 29 August 1989.\nAttorney General Lacy H. Thornburg, by Assistant Attorney General William B. Ray, for the State.\nOttway Burton, P.A., for defendant appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0508-01",
  "first_page_order": 540,
  "last_page_order": 541
}