{
  "id": 1659885,
  "name": "MARILYN JEAN BRITT, Petitioner v. N.C. SHERIFFS' EDUCATION AND TRAINING STANDARDS COMMISSION, Respondent",
  "name_abbreviation": "Britt v. N.C. Sheriffs' Education & Training Standards Commission",
  "decision_date": "1998-07-09",
  "docket_number": "No. 600PA97",
  "first_page": "573",
  "last_page": "577",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "348 N.C. 573"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "N.C.",
    "id": 9292,
    "name": "Supreme Court of North Carolina"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 5,
    "name_long": "North Carolina",
    "name": "N.C."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "493 S.E.2d 86",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1997,
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "128 N.C. App. 81",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        11652258
      ],
      "year": 1997,
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/128/0081-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "448 S.E.2d 798",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1994,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "800-01",
          "parenthetical": "holding that a guilty plea amounted to a \"conviction\" despite the fact that it was followed by the entry of a prayer for judgment continued"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "337 N.C. 779",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        2551016
      ],
      "year": 1994,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "781-82",
          "parenthetical": "holding that a guilty plea amounted to a \"conviction\" despite the fact that it was followed by the entry of a prayer for judgment continued"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/337/0779-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "418 S.E.2d 232",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1992,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "235"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "332 N.C. 141",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        2508082
      ],
      "year": 1992,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "144"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/332/0141-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "281 S.E.2d 24",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1981,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "29"
        },
        {
          "page": "29"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "303 N.C. 573",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8574954
      ],
      "year": 1981,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "580-81"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/303/0573-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "493 S.E.2d 86",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1997,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "87"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "128 N.C. App. 81",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        11652258
      ],
      "year": 1997,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "83-84"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/128/0081-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 438,
    "char_count": 10012,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.733,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 2.500401668968767e-07,
      "percentile": 0.8094485431390015
    },
    "sha256": "5f43bee6ac4eda67c254ab56ab8e68b12970f5915553eed5bb4e405c5d9449ae",
    "simhash": "1:a4cd563a65e5b2e0",
    "word_count": 1573
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:11:06.764212+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "MARILYN JEAN BRITT, Petitioner v. N.C. SHERIFFS\u2019 EDUCATION AND TRAINING STANDARDS COMMISSION, Respondent"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "WHICHARD, Justice.\nThe North Carolina Sheriffs\u2019 Education and Training Standards Commission (Commission) appeals from a decision of the Court of Appeals reviewing the Commission\u2019s interpretation and application of the North Carolina Administrative Code provisions governing the certification of justice officers in this state.\nThe facts giving rise to this appeal are not in dispute. In February 1990 Marilyn Jean Britt, petitioner, was indicted for felonious perjury based on her false testimony under oath in a divorce proceeding. On 10 April 1992, as part of a plea arrangement under which the State agreed to dismiss the felonious perjury charge, petitioner pled no contest to the misdemeanor offense of obstruction of justice. Petitioner understood that she could receive a maximum sentence of two years\u2019 imprisonment for this offense. After accepting petitioner\u2019s plea of no contest, however, the superior court entered a prayer for judgment continued upon payment of the costs.\nOn 5 September 1994 petitioner was appointed to be a deputy with the Onslow County Sheriffs Department. Petitioner applied for and received certification as a Deputy Sheriff effective 14 September 1994. A subsequent background check by the Commission revealed petitioner\u2019s no-contest plea.\nOn 8 December 1994 the Commission notified petitioner that probable cause existed to revoke her certification as a justice officer based upon her conviction of the class B misdemeanor offense of obstruction of justice. Petitioner requested an administrative hearing pursuant to Chapter 150B of the North Carolina General Statutes. The Commission held a hearing and in its final agency decision ordered that petitioner\u2019s sheriff\u2019s certification be revoked pursuant to 12 NCAC 10B .0204(d)(2), the regulation authorizing revocation of a previously issued sheriff\u2019s certification. Petitioner appealed to the trial court pursuant to N.C.G.S. \u00a7 150B-43. The trial court reversed the Commission, concluding that petitioner had not been \u201cconvicted\u201d of a class B misdemeanor within the meaning of that term as used in 12 NCAC 10B .0204(d)(2). On the Commission\u2019s appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that a plea of no contest, followed by a prayer for judgment continued, was not a \u201cconviction\u201d under the North Carolina Administrative Code, and that the Commission improperly revoked petitioner\u2019s certification. Britt v. N.C. Sheriffs\u2019 Educ. & Training Standards Comm\u2019n, 128 N.C. App. 81, 83-84, 493 S.E.2d 86, 87 (1997).\nThe Commission contends that petitioner\u2019s plea of no contest was a \u201cconviction\u201d for purposes of petitioner\u2019s deputy sheriff\u2019s certification despite the trial court\u2019s entry of a prayer for judgment continued. We agree.\nThe Administrative Procedure Act (APA) governs this appeal and defines the scope of our review of the Commission\u2019s final agency decision. N.C.G.S. \u00a7 150B-51 provides that a court reviewing a final agency decision may\nreverse or modify the agency\u2019s decision if the substantial rights of the petitioners may have been prejudiced because the agency\u2019s findings, inferences, conclusions, or decisions are:\n(1) In violation of constitutional provisions;\n(2) In excess of the statutory authority or jurisdiction of the agency;\n(3) Made upon unlawful procedure;\n(4) Affected by other error of law;\n(5) Unsupported by substantial evidence admissible under G.S. 150B-29(a), 150B-30, or 150B-31 in view of the entire record as submitted; or\n(6) Arbitrary or capricious.\nN.C.G.S. \u00a7 150B-51(b) (1995). This appeal presents an issue under N.C.G.S. \u00a7 150B-51(b)(4): Was the Commission\u2019s interpretation of \u201cconviction,\u201d as used in 12 NCAC 10B .0204(d)(2) (quoted in pertinent part below), affected by an error of law?\nWhen the issue on appeal is whether a state agency erred in interpreting a regulatory term, an appellate court may freely substitute its judgment for that of the agency and employ de novo review. See Brooks v. McWhirter Grading Co., 303 N.C. 573, 580-81, 281 S.E.2d 24, 29 (1981). However, the interpretation of a regulation by an agency created to administer that regulation is traditionally accorded some deference by appellate courts. See id. at 581, 281 S.E.2d at 29.\nThe Commission administers the North Carolina Administrative Code regulations at issue here. N.C.G.S. \u00a7 17E-4 (1997). These regulations provide that \u201c[t]he Commission may revoke, suspend or deny the certification of a justice officer when the Commission finds that . . . the certified officer has committed or been convicted of. ... a crime or unlawful act defined in 12 NCAC 10B .0103(10)(b) as a Class B misdemeanor within the five-year period prior to the date of appointment.\u201d 12 NCAC 10B .0204(d)(2) (Nov. 1995) (emphasis added). They also explain that \u201c \u2018Convicted\u2019 or \u2018Conviction\u2019 means and includes, for purposes of this Chapter, the entry of: ... a plea of no contest.\u201d 12 NCAC 10B .0103(2)(c) (Nov. 1995).\nThese regulations are unambiguous. When the language of regulations is clear and unambiguous, there is no room for judicial construction, and courts must give the regulations their plain meaning. See Cornell v. Division of Social Serv., 332 N.C. 141, 144, 418 S.E.2d 232, 235 (1992). Applying the clear meaning of these regulations to the facts here, petitioner\u2019s plea of no contest to the class B misdemeanor offense of obstruction of justice was a \u201cconviction\u201d under 12 NCAC 10B ,0103(2)(c), and the Commission, pursuant to 12 NCAC 10B .0204(d)(2), could revoke petitioner\u2019s certification as a justice officer based upon that conviction.\nThe fact that the trial court issued a prayer for judgment continued does not alter the plain language of these regulations. Nothing in the regulations suggests that \u201cconviction\u201d means and includes a plea of no contest only in those instances in which the trial court does not enter a prayer for judgment continued. Further, this Court and the General Assembly have recognized that a plea may amount to a \u201cconviction\u201d despite the issuance of a prayer for judgment continued. See State v. Sidberry, 337 N.C. 779, 781-82, 448 S.E.2d 798, 800-01 (1994) (holding that a guilty plea amounted to a \u201cconviction\u201d despite the fact that it was followed by the entry of a prayer for judgment continued); N.C.G.S. \u00a7 15A-1331(b) (1997) (recognizing that \u201ca person has been convicted when he . . . has entered a plea of guilty or no contest,\u201d regardless of the judgment imposed).\nWe thus conclude that, in the context presented, the Commission properly interpreted \u201cconviction\u201d to include a plea of no contest followed by a prayer for judgment continued. We also conclude that the Commission properly revoked petitioner\u2019s deputy sheriffs certification under 12 NCAC 10B .0204(d)(2) based upon such a conviction.\nAlternatively, 12 NCAC 10B .0204(d)(2) permits the Commission to revoke, suspend, or deny the certification of a certified officer if that officer has committed a class B misdemeanor. Petitioner does not contest that she in fact committed a class B misdemeanor. Thus, the Commission could have revoked petitioner\u2019s certification under 12 NCAC 10B .0204(d)(2) without relying upon petitioner\u2019s conviction.\nFor the reasons stated, we reverse the decision of the Court of Appeals and remand the case to the Court of Appeals for further remand to the Commission for reinstatement of the Commission\u2019s final agency decision.\nREVERSED AND REMANDED.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "WHICHARD, Justice."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Charles K. Medlin, Jr., for petitioner-appellee.",
      "Michael F. Easley, Attorney General, by John J. Aldridge, III, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent-appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "MARILYN JEAN BRITT, Petitioner v. N.C. SHERIFFS\u2019 EDUCATION AND TRAINING STANDARDS COMMISSION, Respondent\nNo. 600PA97\n(Filed 9 July 1998)\n1. Administrative Law and Procedure \u00a7 65 (NCI4th)\u2014 interpretation of regulatory term \u2014 de novo review\nWhen the issue on appeal is whether a state agency erred in interpreting a regulatory term, an appellate court may freely substitute its judgment for that of the agency and employ de novo review. However, the interpretation of a regulation by an agency created to administer that regulation is traditionally accorded some deference by appellate courts.\n2. Sheriffs, Police, and Other Law Enforcement Officers \u00a7 31 (NCI4th)\u2014 justice officer \u2014 class B misdemeanor \u2014 no contest plea \u2014 PJC\u2014conviction\u2014revocation of certification\nA deputy sheriff\u2019s plea of no contest to the class B misdemeanor of obstruction of justice, followed by the trial court\u2019s entry of a prayer for judgment continued upon the payment of costs, constituted a \u201cconviction\u201d which permitted revocation of her certification under a regulation allowing revocation, suspension, or denial of a justice officer\u2019s certification when the officer has been convicted of a class B misdemeanor within the five-year period prior to the date of appointment. The regulation provided that a conviction includes the entry of a plea of no contest, and the fact that the trial court issued a prayer for judgment continued does not alter the plain language of the regulation.\n3. Sheriffs, Police, and Other Law Enforcement Officers \u00a7 31 (NCI4th)\u2014 justice officer \u2014 commission of class B misdemeanor \u2014 revocation of certification\nA deputy sheriffs certification as a justice officer could properly be revoked on the ground that she \u201chas committed\u201d a class B misdemeanor irrespective of whether she was \u201cconvicted\u201d when she entered a plea of no contest to a class B misdemeanor, followed by the trial court\u2019s entry of a prayer for judgment continued, where she does not contest that she in fact committed a class B misdemeanor.\nOn discretionary review pursuant to N.C.G.S. \u00a7 7A-31 of a unanimous decision of the Court of Appeals, 128 N.C. App. 81, 493 S.E.2d 86 (1997), affirming an order entered by Cobb, J., on 26 September 1996 in Superior Court, Onslow County, that reversed the final agency decision of the North Carolina Sheriffs\u2019 Education and Training Standards Commission revoking plaintiff\u2019s deputy sheriff\u2019s certification. Heard in the Supreme Court 27 May 1998.\nCharles K. Medlin, Jr., for petitioner-appellee.\nMichael F. Easley, Attorney General, by John J. Aldridge, III, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent-appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0573-01",
  "first_page_order": 621,
  "last_page_order": 625
}