{
  "id": 4154336,
  "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. ROBERT LEE EARL JOE",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Joe",
  "decision_date": "2012-04-13",
  "docket_number": "No. 333PA11",
  "first_page": "538",
  "last_page": "539",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "365 N.C. 538"
    }
  ],
  "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": "711 S.E.2d 842",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 2012,
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "711 S.E.2d 842",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 2012,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "848"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 185,
    "char_count": 2813,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.76,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 6.323771877050583e-08,
      "percentile": 0.3887547111820033
    },
    "sha256": "e33d7c288d1a9eef170b82b2ebba18d68bb32650d758897c1a25e778e81321fa",
    "simhash": "1:3b29636e567b8af8",
    "word_count": 458
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:57:15.030367+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. ROBERT LEE EARL JOE"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "PER CURIAM.\nThe State of North Carolina seeks review of the unanimous Court of Appeals decision affirming the trial court\u2019s dismissal of all charges against defendant. Defendant was charged with resisting a public officer, felony possession of cocaine with intent to sell or deliver, and attaining habitual felon status. Defendant filed both a motion to dismiss the resisting charge and a motion to suppress all evidence seized during the search incident to arrest. At a pretrial evidentiary hearing on the motions, the trial court granted both of defendant\u2019s motions, thus dismissing the charge of resisting a public officer and suppressing all evidence seized. Immediately thereafter, the State announced to the trial court that it \u201cwould be unable to proceed with the case in chief\u2019 on the remaining charges. As a result, the other charges were dismissed. The State appealed. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court, reasoning that the prosecutor\u2019s statements to the trial court amounted to a dismissal in open court, under N.C.G.S. \u00a7 15A-931. State v. Joe, _ N.C. App. _, _, 711 S.E.2d 842, 848 (2011).\nA trial court may grant a defendant\u2019s motion to dismiss under N.C.G.S \u00a7\u00a7 15A-954 or 15A-1227, or the State may enter \u201can oral dismissal in open court\u201d pursuant to N.C.G.S. \u00a7 15A-931. Although we do not agree with the Court of Appeals\u2019 holding that the prosecutor\u2019s statements amounted to a dismissal in open court, we also conclude that the trial court had no authority to enter an order dismissing the case on its own motion.\nAccordingly, we vacate the decision of the Court of Appeals to the extent it may be read as affirming the trial court\u2019s dismissal of charges on its own motion. Therefore, we remand to the Court of Appeals for consideration of the State\u2019s argument pertaining to the motion to suppress. As to all other issues, we hold that discretionary review was improvidently allowed.\nVACATED IN PART AND REMANDED; DISCRETIONARY REVIEW IMPROVIDENTLY ALLOWED IN PART.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "PER CURIAM."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Roy Cooper, Attorney General, by Derrick C. Mertz, Assistant Attorney General, for the State-appellant.",
      "Ann B. Petersen for defendant-appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. ROBERT LEE EARL JOE\nNo. 333PA11\n(Filed 13 April 2012)\nCriminal Law\u2014 dismissal \u2014 by motion of the court \u2014 no authority\nThe trial court had no authority to enter an order dismissing a criminal prosecution on its own motion. The case was remanded for consideration of the State\u2019s argument concerning a motion to suppress.\nOn discretionary review pursuant to N.C.G.S. \u00a7 7A 31 of a unanimous decision of the Court of Appeals, \u2014 N.C. App. \u2014, 711 S.E.2d 842 (2012), affirming an order dismissing all charges against defendant entered on 19 May 2010 by Judge Patrice A. Hinnant in Superior Court, Forsyth County. Heard in the Supreme Court on 12 March 2012.\nRoy Cooper, Attorney General, by Derrick C. Mertz, Assistant Attorney General, for the State-appellant.\nAnn B. Petersen for defendant-appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0538-01",
  "first_page_order": 576,
  "last_page_order": 577
}