{
  "id": 4317548,
  "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. FRANCISCO JAVIER PIZANO-TREJO",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Pizano-Trejo",
  "decision_date": "2013-10-04",
  "docket_number": "No. 203PA12",
  "first_page": "111",
  "last_page": "111",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "367 N.C. 111"
    }
  ],
  "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": "723 S.E.2d 583",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 2012,
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "700 S.E.2d 223",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 2010,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "364 N.C. 416",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        4152505
      ],
      "year": 2010,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/364/0416-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 116,
    "char_count": 1127,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.736,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.14568976801350195
    },
    "sha256": "0e740a2c2f242a9a6f510f48335990fb0c95d3cbaee97d67ad993688992b1f5e",
    "simhash": "1:0c95f2b60e65e55c",
    "word_count": 177
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:06:46.212757+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. FRANCISCO JAVIER PIZANO-TREJO"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "PER CURIAM.\nJustice BEASLEY took no part in the consideration or decision of this case. The remaining members of the Court are equally divided, with three members voting to affirm and three members voting to reverse the decision of the Court of Appeals. Accordingly, the decision of the Court of Appeals is left undisturbed and stands without precedential value. See, e.g., Goldston v. State, 364 N.C. 416, 700 S.E.2d 223 (2010).\nAFFIRMED.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "PER CURIAM."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Roy Cooper, Attorney General, by Sherri Homer Lawrence, Assistant Attorney General, for the State-appellant.",
      "Staples S. Hughes, Appellate Defender, by Katherine Jane Allen, Assistant Appellate Defender, for defendant-appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. FRANCISCO JAVIER PIZANO-TREJO\nNo. 203PA12\n(Filed 4 October 2013)\nOn discretionary review pursuant to N.C.G.S. \u00a7 7A-31 of a unanimous, unpublished decision of the Court of Appeals,_N.C. App. _, 723 S.E.2d 583 (2012), affirming in part, vacating in part, and remanding in part a judgment and order entered on 23 March 2011 by Judge Robert F. Floyd Jr. in Superior Court, Cumberland County. Heard in the Supreme Court on 15 April 2013.\nRoy Cooper, Attorney General, by Sherri Homer Lawrence, Assistant Attorney General, for the State-appellant.\nStaples S. Hughes, Appellate Defender, by Katherine Jane Allen, Assistant Appellate Defender, for defendant-appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0111-01",
  "first_page_order": 151,
  "last_page_order": 151
}