Smith's Criminal Case Compendium
Smith's Criminal Case Compendium
Table of Contents
Smith's Criminal Case Compendium
About
This compendium includes significant criminal cases by the U.S. Supreme Court & N.C. appellate courts, Nov. 2008 – Present. Selected 4th Circuit cases also are included.
Jessica Smith prepared case summaries Nov. 2008-June 4, 2019; later summaries are prepared by other School staff.
Instructions
Navigate using the table of contents to the left or by using the search box below. Use quotations for an exact phrase search. A search for multiple terms without quotations functions as an “or” search. Not sure where to start? The 5 minute video tutorial offers a guided tour of main features – Launch Tutorial (opens in new tab).
In this Guilford County case, defendant appealed the denial of his motions for appropriate relief (MARs), arguing error in summarily denying his MARs challenging the entry of his guilty plea. The Court of Appeals agreed, vacating the denials and remanding for an evidentiary hearing and findings of fact on defendant’s MARs.
In 2006, defendant was indicted for a robbery at a restaurant, and the charges included second-degree kidnapping and attempted kidnapping of two victims under sixteen years old. Defendant pleaded guilty to three charges and received an active sentence of imprisonment with nine months of post-release supervision; the trial court did not identify the offenses as reportable convictions. Afterwards, the Combined Records Section of North Carolina Department of Correction requested that the trial court clarify the ages of the kidnapping victims, and “[w]ithout prior notice nor Defendant being present, the trial court entered a ‘corrected’ judgment . . . indicating ‘the above designated offense(s) is a reportable conviction involving a minor. G.S. 14-208.6.’” Slip Op. at 2. This change required defendant to register as a sex offender and also required five years of post-release supervision. In defendant’s first MAR, he argued he did not learn of this change until right before his release from prison. The trial court denied defendant’s MARs without holding an evidentiary hearing.
Reviewing the MARs, the Court of Appeals highlighted that the issues before the trial court required settling factual disputes, and thus the trial court erred by failing to hold an evidentiary hearing. The record before the court did not contain a verbatim recording of defendant’s entry of his guilty plea, limiting the court’s ability to consider defendant’s claims. This required the court to remand for an evidentiary hearing and to vacate the previous rulings on the MARs.
Going further, the court also considered whether the sex-offender registration and post-release supervision were direct or collateral consequences of defendant’s guilty plea, as failure to advise defendant of direct consequences would render his guilty plea involuntary. Regarding sex-offender registration, the court held that “sex offender registration is a collateral consequence of a guilty plea to a crime requiring registration.” Id. at 14. However, the court held that “post-release supervision is distinguishable from . . . sex offender registration” and represented a direct consequence of the guilty plea. Id. at 19. The court directed the trial court to consider defendant’s arguments regarding his post-release supervision to determine whether his plea was entered “voluntarily, intelligently and understandingly.” Id. at 21.
In this Wayne County case, defendant appealed the order denying his motion to withdraw his guilty plea to felony possession of cocaine. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s order.
In January of 2005, defendant was indicted for felony possession of cocaine; subsequently defendant “entered a plea of guilty to felony possession of cocaine in order to receive a conditional discharge pursuant to [G.S.] 90-96.” Slip Op. at 2. In February of 2006, the trial court determined defendant had satisfied the conditions imposed for a conditional discharge and dismissed the charges under G.S. 90-96. During these events, defendant was an undocumented immigrant married to an American citizen and father to one child through the marriage. In 2021, defendant was detained by immigration officials and sent to a detention center in Georgia, where he was held without bond as a result of his guilty plea to a felony in 2005. In January of 2022 defendant filed a motion to withdraw his guilty plea to the possession charge, arguing he was “confused” and did not know the guilty plea would continue to constitute a conviction for federal immigration purposes. Id. at 3. After holding a hearing, the trial court denied defendant’s motion, treating it as a motion for appropriate relief (MAR).
The Court of Appeals first established that the trial court was correct in interpreting the motion as a MAR, explaining the dismissal of charges in 2006 was “final judgment” in the matter, and defendant’s subsequent motion was “a post-sentence MAR requiring Defendant to show manifest injustice in order to withdraw his guilty plea.” Id. at 9. The court then noted the six factors recognized in North Carolina case law justifying withdrawal of a plea, and that defendant argued “misunderstanding the consequences of the guilty plea, hasty entry, confusion, and coercion.” Id.at 10. Here, while the court expressed sympathy to defendant’s situation, it explained that he had not shown manifest injustice, as the federal immigration consequences were collateral, not direct consequences of entering his plea that he failed to understand. Sumarizing the situation, the court stated “[w]hile Defendant may now regret the consequences of his guilty plea in light of its implications under federal law, his remorse does not reflect a misunderstanding of the guilty plea at the time he entered into it.” Id. at 15.
The defendant’s assertions in his MAR, filed more than seven years after expiration of the appeal period, that his plea was invalid because the trial court failed to follow the procedural requirements of G.S. 15A-1023 and -1024 were precluded by G.S. 15A-1027 (“Noncompliance with the procedures of this Article may not be a basis for review of a conviction after the appeal period for the conviction has expired.”).