State v. Ledbetter, 250 N.C. App. 692

Donna Helms Ledbetter was charged with driving while impaired and moved to dismiss, arguing the magistrate failed to follow statutory and Knoll procedures at initial appearance.
The trial court denied the motion to dismiss; Ledbetter then pleaded guilty but expressly preserved the right to appeal the denial of her pre-plea motion to dismiss.
Ledbetter filed a purported appeal and petitioned the Court of Appeals for a writ of certiorari to review the denial of her motion to dismiss.
The Court of Appeals initially dismissed the appeal, concluding no statutory right to appeal applied and that Appellate Rule 21 did not provide the procedural ground for certiorari in these circumstances.
On remand from the North Carolina Supreme Court (in light of State v. Thomsen and State v. Stubbs), the Court reconsidered whether it could issue certiorari under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-1444(e) and the Appellate Rules.
The Court held that, although statutory jurisdiction exists to entertain certiorari petitions, Appellate Rule 21 does not supply a procedural ground to issue the writ to review a denial of a pre-plea motion to dismiss after a guilty plea without invoking Rule 2; the Court declined to invoke Rule 2 and denied the petition.

Issue	State's Argument	Ledbetter's Argument	Held
Whether the Court of Appeals has jurisdiction to issue writ of certiorari under N.C.G.S. § 15A-1444(e) to review denial of a pre-plea motion to dismiss after a guilty plea	Statutory grant of certiorari jurisdiction permits appellate review	§ 15A-1444(e) authorizes defendant to petition for certiorari; review should be available	Jurisdiction exists under the statute, but jurisdiction alone is distinct from procedural grounds to grant certiorari under the Appellate Rules
Whether Appellate Rule 21 provides a procedural basis to grant certiorari in this situation (or whether Rule 2 must be invoked)	Rule 1 and statutory jurisdiction permit the Court to exercise certiorari even if Rule 21 does not list the ground explicitly	Ledbetter relied on § 15A-1444(e) but did not invoke any of Rule 21’s specific grounds for certiorari	Rule 21 does not provide a procedural mechanism here; the Court would need to invoke Rule 2 to suspend the rules, but the Court declined to do so and denied certiorari

State v. Thomsen, 789 S.E.2d 639 (N.C. 2016) (explains § 7A-32(c) creates a default rule that the Court of Appeals may review lower-court rulings by certiorari unless a statute restricts jurisdiction)
State v. Stubbs, 770 S.E.2d 74 (N.C. 2016) (holds Court of Appeals has jurisdiction to hear State appeals of MARs and clarifies Rules of Appellate Procedure cannot strip statutorily conferred jurisdiction)
State v. Knoll, 369 S.E.2d 558 (N.C. 1988) (sets out magistrate duties at initial appearance and grounds for dismissal when those duties are not met)
Steingress v. Steingress, 511 S.E.2d 298 (N.C. 1999) (describes the narrow, exceptional standard for invoking Appellate Rule 2 to suspend procedural rules)