{ "id": 12422824, "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. TERRANCE JAVARR ROSS", "name_abbreviation": "State v. Ross", "decision_date": "2016-12-21", "docket_number": "No. 297PA15", "first_page": "393", "last_page": "401", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "369 N.C. 393" } ], "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": "776 S.E.2d 897", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "case_ids": [ 12643749, 12643750, 12643751, 12643752, 12643753, 12643754, 12643755, 12643756, 12643757, 12643758, 12643759, 12643760, 12643761, 12643762 ], "year": 2015, "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/se2d/776/0897-01", "/se2d/776/0897-02", "/se2d/776/0897-03", "/se2d/776/0897-04", "/se2d/776/0897-05", "/se2d/776/0897-06", "/se2d/776/0897-07", "/se2d/776/0897-08", "/se2d/776/0897-09", "/se2d/776/0897-10", "/se2d/776/0897-11", "/se2d/776/0897-12", "/se2d/776/0897-13", "/se2d/776/0897-14" ] }, { "cite": "643 S.E.2d 581", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "case_ids": [ 12638097 ], "year": 2007, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "583", "parenthetical": "\"Because a guilty plea waives certain fundamental constitutional rights such as the right to a trial by jury, our legislature has enacted laws to ensure guilty pleas are informed and voluntary.\"" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/se2d/643/0581-01" ] }, { "cite": "776 S.E.2d 897", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "case_ids": [ 12643749, 12643750, 12643751, 12643752, 12643753, 12643754, 12643755, 12643756, 12643757, 12643758, 12643759, 12643760, 12643761, 12643762 ], "year": 2015, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "unpublished" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/se2d/776/0897-01", "/se2d/776/0897-02", "/se2d/776/0897-03", "/se2d/776/0897-04", "/se2d/776/0897-05", "/se2d/776/0897-06", "/se2d/776/0897-07", "/se2d/776/0897-08", "/se2d/776/0897-09", "/se2d/776/0897-10", "/se2d/776/0897-11", "/se2d/776/0897-12", "/se2d/776/0897-13", "/se2d/776/0897-14" ] }, { "cite": "140 S.E. 230", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "year": 1927, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "231", "parenthetical": "\"Certiorari is a discretionary writ, to be issued only for good or sufficient cause shown, and it is not one to which the moving party is entitled as a matter of right.\" (citations omitted)" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "194 N.C. 577", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8613956 ], "year": 1927, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "579", "parenthetical": "\"Certiorari is a discretionary writ, to be issued only for good or sufficient cause shown, and it is not one to which the moving party is entitled as a matter of right.\" (citations omitted)" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/194/0577-01" ] }, { "cite": "64 L. Ed. 2d 795", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "L. Ed. 2d", "year": 1980, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "446 U.S. 941", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 6277664, 6275708, 6276260, 6274984, 6278350, 6275343, 6278644, 6279286, 6278967, 6277367, 6276539, 6275996, 6278014 ], "year": 1980, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/446/0941-08", "/us/446/0941-03", "/us/446/0941-05", "/us/446/0941-01", "/us/446/0941-10", "/us/446/0941-02", "/us/446/0941-11", "/us/446/0941-13", "/us/446/0941-12", "/us/446/0941-07", "/us/446/0941-06", "/us/446/0941-04", "/us/446/0941-09" ] }, { "cite": "411 U.S. 258", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 10205 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1973, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "267" }, { "page": "243" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/411/0258-01" ] }, { "cite": "259 S.E.2d 843", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1979, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "852" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "298 N.C. 380", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8572489 ], "year": 1979, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "395" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/298/0380-01" ] }, { "cite": "361 N.C. 333", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 3740710 ], "year": 2007, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "335", "parenthetical": "\"Because a guilty plea waives certain fundamental constitutional rights such as the right to a trial by jury, our legislature has enacted laws to ensure guilty pleas are informed and voluntary.\"" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/361/0333-01" ] }, { "cite": "446 S.E.2d 579", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1994, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "590", "parenthetical": "citations omitted" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "337 N.C. 132", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 2550000 ], "year": 1994, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "149", "parenthetical": "citations omitted" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/337/0132-01" ] }, { "cite": "716 S.E.2d 863", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 4, "year": 2011, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "866" }, { "page": "865" }, { "page": "865-68" }, { "page": "867-68" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "216 N.C. App. 558", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 4343508 ], "weight": 2, "year": 2011, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "562" }, { "page": "560-61" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/216/0558-01" ] }, { "cite": "748 S.E.2d 730", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 3, "year": 2013, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "736", "parenthetical": "quoting N.C.G.S. \u00a7 15A-1022(b)" }, { "page": "735" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "229 N.C. App. 616", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 4243870 ], "weight": 2, "year": 2013, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "624", "parenthetical": "quoting N.C.G.S. \u00a7 15A-1022(b)" }, { "page": "622" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/229/0616-01" ] }, { "cite": "2015 WL 4620517", "category": "reporters:specialty_west", "reporter": "WL", "weight": 2, "year": 2015, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "unpublished" }, { "page": "*1" } ], "opinion_index": 0 } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 712, "char_count": 18519, "ocr_confidence": 0.712, "pagerank": { "raw": 9.747979048144563e-08, "percentile": 0.5309811498662663 }, "sha256": "6f6185b4242676b03c1d11d6ab5b751a59c82791aeaa30a3c4578ba2b86357d3", "simhash": "1:23efd6936797aefd", "word_count": 3118 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:48:28.411797+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2018-10-24", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. TERRANCE JAVARR ROSS" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "BEASLEY, Justice.\nWe consider whether the Court of Appeals erred by vacating the judgment entered by the trial court\u2014which was entered according to the terms of the parties\u2019 plea agreement\u2014on grounds that defendant\u2019s plea was not entered knowingly and voluntarily. For the reasons stated herein, we reverse the decision of the Court of Appeals.\nOn 22 September 2008, a grand jury indicted defendant on two counts of possession of a firearm by a felon. Defendant alleges that on 14 October 2010, while he was incarcerated in another county on unrelated charges, he filed a motion under N.C.G.S. \u00a7 lSAYlRc) in Superior Court, Cleveland County, to proceed with the possession of firearms charges. Defendant also alleges that in April 2013 he filed a pretrial motion to dismiss due to the State\u2019s failure to request that defendant be produced for trial within the six months after defendant\u2019s motion to proceed. On 5 August 2014, the matter came on for hearing in Superior Court, Cleveland County. Defendant entered an Alford plea of guilty to two counts of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. At that time, the State and defendant agreed to the following terms of the plea arrangement:\nIn exchange for pleas of guilty to two counts of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, the State agrees to consolidate the charges into one Class G felony for sentencing with the defendant receiving an active sentence of 24 - 29 months[.]\nThe State further agrees to dismiss all remaining charges pending against the defendant in Cleveland County.\nThe sentence in these cases will run at the expiration of any sentence being served.\nAfter defendant tendered his guilty plea before the trial court, the following colloquy occurred among defendant, defense counsel, and the trial court:\n[DEFENSE COUNSEL]:... You can see from the transcript [defendant] has a lot of irons in the fire over here in Cleveland County, Your Honor. That\u2019s why we chose to go forward today. He feels that given all he has going on, even though there may be some holes in this case that would have benefited him at trial, the big picture he feels it\u2019s in his best interest to resolve these matters in this fashion even though he\u2019s serving a lengthy sentence, and this will add time to that. He\u2019s prepared to accept that responsibility to get the benefit of clearing all these cases up. We\u2019d ask you to accept the plea based on that, Your Honor....\nTHE DEFENDANT: Your Honor, I just want to go on record saying that I had previously filed a 15-7 - 15A-711 request, and then I followed up with a motion that was never answered with the Court, and I feel like due to that fact, it\u2019s in my best interest to plead guilty today.\n[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: The motion was never heard, Your Honor. I think that\u2019s what he\u2019s saying. Given the uncertainty of it, he feels it\u2019s in his best interest to go forward in this fashion, Your Honor.\nTHE COURT: So you\u2019re abandoning whatever was -\nTHE DEFENDANT: No. I just want to put on record that it was made for appeal purposes. They can\u2019t say that I abandoned the whole issue with the motion. I\u2019m saying that I filed it previously, then I brought it up with the motion that was never answered by the Court.\nTHE COURT: What are you talking about? A speedy trial motion?\nTHE DEFENDANT: No. It\u2019s just a motion to proceed.\nTHE COURT: Oh, I see what you\u2019re saying.\nTHE DEFENDANT: Yes.\nTHE COURT: Okay.\nTHE DEFENDANT: I had filed them previously within 180 days, and they didn\u2019t comply so I filed a motion to dismiss which was never heard. So after it\u2019s been so long - at this time, that\u2019s my best option to just go on and plead-guilty. I\u2019ll pursue that later on. I just want to leave that.\nTHE COURT: Well, I don\u2019t know for certain, but the fact that you\u2019re proceeding now, you may not be able to proceed on that issue.\nTHE DEFENDANT: If that\u2019s the choice, I just want to have it on record. If that\u2019s the choice \u2014 if I can\u2019t later on, I just wanted to put it on there just in case later on in the process, they don\u2019t say that I didn\u2019t bring it up before I was sentenced.\nTHE COURT: Okay.\n[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: I explained that to him as well, Your Honor, take whatever, if anything happens, it happens. If it doesn\u2019t, it doesn\u2019t.\nTHE COURT: Okay. All right. With all that, it\u2019s still your choice to go ahead?\n[THE DEFENDANT]: Yes. Yes, sir.\nTHE COURT: All right. I just wanted to make sure that was clear.\n(Emphases added). The trial court accepted defendant\u2019s guilty plea and sentenced him to twenty-four to twenty-nine months in prison. Defendant gave notice of appeal the same day he entered his guilty plea.\nOn 15 August 2014, defendant filed a pro se motion for appropriate relief in the trial court arguing that the trial court lacked jurisdiction over defendant and the subject matter of the case. Specifically, defendant argued that because the State failed to proceed as required by N.C.G.S. \u00a7 15A-711(c) after his written request to do so, the charges against him should have been dismissed. In its 18 August 2014 written order, which was entered on 20 August 2014, the trial court denied defendant\u2019s motion for appropriate relief, concluding that defendant waived all claims he may have had under'section 15A-711 when he entered his guilty plea; that it had jurisdiction over defendant; and that defendant\u2019s constitutional and statutory rights were not violated by the entry and acceptance of his guilty plea. The record does not indicate that defendant noted an appeal from the denial of his motion for appropriate relief.\nOn 27 February 2015, defendant petitioned for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals. In his petition defendant argued that: (1) there was an insufficient factual basis to support a plea of guilty on one of his charges; and (2) the trial court should have dismissed the charges on the basis that the State violated N.C.G.S. \u00a7 15A-711 and erred in its denial of his post-conviction motion for appropriate relief based on the State\u2019s violation of section 15A-711.\nThe Court of Appeals allowed defendant\u2019s petition for writ of certio-rari to review the question of whether defendant entered his guilty plea voluntarily and knowingly. State v. Ross, _ N.C. App. _, 776 S.E.2d 897, 2015 WL 4620517 (2015) (unpublished). Although the parties did not brief the issue of whether defendant\u2019s plea was entered knowingly and voluntarily, the Court of Appeals reasoned that it is proper to issue this extraordinary writ when the voluntariness of a defendant\u2019s plea is in question and the defendant made a motion for appropriate relief in an effort to preserve matters to be heard after trial.\nIn its opinion the Court of Appeals cited its previous holding that \u201ca guilty plea entered pursuant to a transcript of plea which purports to reserve the right to seek appellate review\u201d of an issue not subject to review after the entry and acceptance of the plea \u201cdoes not result in the entry of a plea which \u2018is a product of informed choice.\u2019 \u201d Ross, 2015 WL 4620517, at *1 (quoting State v. Tinney, 229 N.C. App. 616, 624, 748 S.E.2d 730, 736 (2013) (quoting N.C.G.S. \u00a7 15A-1022(b))). The Court of Appeals further explained that \u201cthe entry of a plea conditioned on the appealability of non-appealable matters does not result in the entry of a voluntary plea.\u201d Id. (citing State v. Demaio, 216 N.C. App. 558, 562, 716 S.E.2d 863, 866 (2011)). After reviewing the plea hearing transcript, the Court of Appeals held that defendant conditioned his plea on the appeal-ability of the failure to grant his section 15A-711 motion; therefore, the plea \u201cwas not entered knowingly and voluntarily.\u201d Id. at 2. The Court of Appeals, accordingly, vacated the trial court\u2019s judgment and remanded for further proceedings. Id. This Court allowed discretionary review on 28 January 2016.\nIn its brief to this Court, the State requested that we review whether the Court of Appeals erred when it vacated the trial court\u2019s judgment on the grounds that defendant\u2019s plea was not entered knowingly and voluntarily. This Court reviews the decision of the Court of Appeals to determine whether the decision contains any error of law. E.g., State v. Brooks, 337 N.C. 132, 149, 446 S.E.2d 579, 590 (1994) (citations omitted).\nThe exchange among defendant, defense counsel, and the trial court during the plea colloquy\u2014a portion of which is set out above\u2014does not indicate that defendant\u2019s guilty plea was conditionally entered so as to preserve the right for pretrial motions to be heard at a later time. When considered in its entirety, the transcript of the plea hearing does not demonstrate that defendant believed his plea was conditioned on the right to seek review of any pretrial motion. Defendant pleaded guilty understanding that the right to appeal any claims he may have raised before the trial court was not preserved and was therefore waived. The trial court warned defendant that he \u201cmay not be able to proceed on [the motions],\u201d thereby waiving certain rights by entering his guilty plea. Defendant indicated multiple times that he understood the trial court\u2019s explanation regarding the waiver of certain rights. Defendant also signed the transcript of plea form, which indicated that there were limitations on his right to appeal. See State v. Agnew, 361 N.C. 333, 335, 643 S.E.2d 581, 583 (2007) (\u201cBecause a guilty plea waives certain fundamental constitutional rights such as the right to a trial by jury, our legislature has enacted laws to ensure guilty pleas are informed and voluntary.\u201d); see also State v. Reynolds, 298 N.C. 380, 395, 259 S.E.2d 843, 852 (1979) (\u201cWhen a criminal defendant has solemnly admitted in open court that he is in fact guilty of the offense with which he is charged, he may not thereafter raise independent claims relating to the deprivation of constitutional rights that occurred prior to the entry of the guilty plea.\u201d (quoting Tollett v. Henderson, 411 U.S. 258, 267, 36 L. Ed. 2d 235, 243 (1973))), cert. denied, 446 U.S. 941, 64 L. Ed. 2d 795 (1980).\nFurthermore, defendant acknowledged that the plea arrangement as set forth in the transcript of plea was his \u201cfull plea arrangement.\u201d Unlike Demaio, on which the Court of Appeals relied, the terms and conditions of the parties\u2019 plea agreement in this case did not attempt to preserve the right to appellate review of a non-appealable matter. In Demaio the defendant\u2019s plea agreement expressly provided that he preserved the right to appeal the denial of certain pretrial motions. 216 N.C. App. at 560-61, 716 S.E.2d at 865. But the defendant had no appeal as of right as a result of his guilty plea and waived the right to seek review of these claims at a later time by pleading guilty. Thus, the defendant had no means to take advantage of the plea arrangement to which he agreed. Id. at 561-65, 716 S.E.2d at 865-68. In that case the Court of Appeals explained that because the defendant entered a guilty plea on the condition that he preserved the right to appeal a non-appealable matter, his plea was not voluntary. Id. at 564-65, 716 S.E.2d at 867-68. Here, however, defendant\u2019s plea agreement was not conditioned on the right to appeal a non-appealable matter. The only terms and conditions set forth in the parties\u2019 plea agreement are the following:\nIn exchange for pleas of guilty to two counts of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, the State agrees to consolidate the charges into one Class G felony for sentencing with the defendant receiving an active sentence of 24 - 29 months [.]\nThe State further agrees to dismiss all remaining charges pending against the defendant in Cleveland County.\nThe sentence in these cases will run at the expiration of any sentence being served.\nDefendant\u2019s plea agreement was not conditioned on anything else. Additionally, unlike Demaio, in which the defendant was never advised that a provision in his plea agreement was invalid, the trial court here informed defendant that he may not be able to seek appellate review of any failure to grant certain pretrial motions, and defendant indicated to the trial court that he understood he waived his rights. See Tinney, 229 N.C. App. at 622, 748 S.E.2d at 735 (holding that the defendant was \u201cnot entitled to relief from the trial court\u2019s judgment on the basis of the principle enunciated in Demaio\u201d because the defendant \u201chad ample notice\u201d that if he proceeded with the guilty plea it was not likely that he could obtain review of an order transferring his case from district court to superior court). Defendant does not allege that he conditioned his guilty plea on the right to appeal the failure to grant his section 15A-711 motion, and at the hearing defendant and defense counsel specifically told the trial court that defendant wanted to move forward with the plea agreement because it was in defendant\u2019s best interest. Accordingly, we hold that defendant entered his guilty plea knowingly and voluntarily.\nFurther, the Court of Appeals found it appropriate to grant defendant\u2019s petition for writ of certiorari only on the issue of whether defendant\u2019s plea was knowing and voluntary, and not on the two issues raised by defendant in his petition for writ of certiorari. The decision concerning whether to issue a writ of certiorari is discretionary, and thus, the Court of Appeals may choose to grant such a writ to review some issues that are meritorious but not others for which a defendant has failed to show good or sufficient cause. See Womble v. Moncure Mill & Gin Co., 194 N.C. 577, 579, 140 S.E. 230, 231 (1927) (\u201cCertiorari is a discretionary writ, to be issued only for good or sufficient cause shown, and it is not one to which the moving party is entitled as a matter of right.\u201d (citations omitted)). As such, the two issues that defendant raised in his petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals have not survived that court\u2019s decision to allow the writ for the limited purpose of considering the voluntariness of his guilty plea. Specifically, defendant did not appeal the trial court\u2019s denial of his motion for appropriate relief; he is not entitled to appeal his guilty plea; if he did file a section 15A-711 motion, any challenge to the failure to grant it did not survive his guilty plea; and defendant cannot now challenge the sufficiency of the factual basis for his plea deal.\nBecause we conclude that defendant pleaded guilty knowingly and voluntarily, we therefore reverse the decision of the Court of Appeals vacating defendant\u2019s guilty plea and the resulting judgment.\nREVERSED.\n. Defendant filed this alleged motion pursuant to N.C.G.S. \u00a7 15A-711(c). Section 15A-711 delineates the procedures for securing attendance at hearings and trials of criminal defendants who are incarcerated in institutions within the State. Subsection 15A-711(c) provides that \u201c[a] defendant who is confined in an institution in this State pursuant to a criminal proceeding and who has other criminal charges pending against him\u201d may file a written request \u201cwith the clerk of the court where the other charges are pending\u201d to \u201crequire the prosecutor prosecuting such charges to proceed pursuant to this section.\u201d A copy of defendant's request must be served upon the prosecutor, and \u201c[i]f the prosecutor does not proceed pursuant to subsection (a) within six months from the date the request is filed with the cleric, the charges must be dismissed.\u201d N.C.G.S. \u00a7 15A-711(c) (2015).\n. The record does not contain any file stamped copy of defendant\u2019s alleged section 15A-711 motion or motion to dismiss, and thus it is unclear whether any pretrial motions were ever filed. The record does include two documents addressed to Mr. Rick Beam regarding defendant\u2019s purported motion to dismiss, which are dated 10 September 2013 and 16 September 2013, respectively. Neither document is file stamped by the Clerk of Superior Court\u2019s office and neither appears to have been filed. An internet search shows that Rick Beam is an attorney practicing in Gaston, Cleveland, and Lincoln Counties, North Carolina. The record does not indicate the nature of Mr. Beam\u2019s relationship with defendant.\n. The State filed a Motion to Dismiss defendant\u2019s appeal. The Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal because defendant had no right of appeal from the trial court\u2019s acceptance of his guilty plea. See N.C.G.S. \u00a7 15A-1444 (2015) (enumerating the limited circumstances in which a defendant who pleads guilty has a right to appeal).\nIn support of his purported appeal as of right, defendant asserted before the Court of Appeals that the trial court committed prejudicial error when it accepted his guilty plea to two counts of possession of a firearm by a felon because the evidence only supported one conviction of possession of a firearm by a felon. Additionally, he asserted that the trial court committed prejudicial error when it failed to dismiss the charges against him after the State failed to writ him to Cleveland County within six months of his section 15A-711 motion.", "type": "majority", "author": "BEASLEY, Justice." } ], "attorneys": [ "Roy Cooper, Attorney General, by Kathleen N. Bolton, Assistant Attorney General, for the State-appellant.", "Peter Wood, for defendant-appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. TERRANCE JAVARR ROSS\nNo. 297PA15\nFiled 21 December 2016\n1. Criminal Law\u2014guilty pleas\u2014voluntariness\nThe Court of Appeals erred by vacating defendant\u2019s guilty plea to possession of a firearm by a felon where defendant pleaded guilty knowingly and voluntarily. Considered in its entirety, the transcript of the plea hearing did not demonstrate that defendant believed his plea was conditioned on the right to seek review of any pretrial motion (defendant contended that the State violated N.C.G.S. \u00a7 15A-711).\n2. Appeal and Error\u2014writ of certiorari\u2014issues not accepted\nThe Court of Appeals\u2019 decision to issue a writ of certiorari is discretionary and that Court may choose to grant such a writ to review some issues but not others. Two issues that defendant raised in his petition for -writ of certiorari did not survive that Court\u2019s decision to allow the writ for the limited purpose of considering the voluntariness of his guilty plea.\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._, 776 S.E.2d 897 (2015), vacating a judgment entered on 5 August 2014 by Judge James W. Morgan in Superior Court, Cleveland County, and remanding for further proceedings. Heard in the Supreme Court on 17 May 2016 in session in the Old Burke County Courthouse in the City of Morganton pursuant to N.C.G.S. \u00a7 7A-10(a).\nRoy Cooper, Attorney General, by Kathleen N. Bolton, Assistant Attorney General, for the State-appellant.\nPeter Wood, for defendant-appellee." }, "file_name": "0393-01", "first_page_order": 469, "last_page_order": 477 }