371 N.C. 192
N.C.2018Background
- Defendant Donna Ledbetter was charged with DWI (plus two possession counts later dismissed) and moved to dismiss under N.C.G.S. § 20-38.4 and State v. Knoll for magistrate-procedure defects; the trial court denied the motion on Oct. 20, 2014.
- On Oct. 27, 2014 Ledbetter pleaded guilty but expressly reserved the right to appeal the denial of the motion to dismiss and timely petitioned the Court of Appeals for a writ of certiorari under N.C.G.S. § 15A-1444(e).
- The Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal and denied certiorari, reasoning that although statutory jurisdiction existed, no procedural rule (Rule 21) provided a basis to issue the writ and it would not invoke Rule 2 to suspend the rules.
- The Supreme Court granted discretionary review to decide whether the absence of a procedural rule limits the Court of Appeals’ authority to issue writs of certiorari.
- The Supreme Court held that subsection 7A-32(c) and § 15A-1444(e) give the Court of Appeals jurisdiction and that the absence of a Rule 21 procedure does not strip the court of discretionary authority; in absence of a rule the court may rely on common-law practice rather than automatically denying certiorari or invoking Rule 2.
- The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and remanded for proceedings consistent with its opinion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether absence of a specific procedural rule (Rule 21) prevents the Court of Appeals from issuing a writ of certiorari when a statute grants jurisdiction | State: Court of Appeals lacks procedural basis under Rule 21 to grant certiorari and should not invoke Rule 2 | Ledbetter: Statute (§ 15A-1444(e) and § 7A-32(c)) supplies jurisdiction and court may use common-law practice to exercise discretion | Court: Statutory jurisdiction is controlling; absence of Rule 21 does not bar certiorari and court may rely on common-law practice to exercise discretion |
| Whether § 15A-1444(e) limits Court of Appeals’ jurisdiction to review guilty-plea-related orders | State: Limits or requires strict procedural grounds under Rule 21 | Ledbetter: § 15A-1444(e) permits petition for certiorari and contains no limiting language | Court: § 15A-1444(e) provides jurisdiction and contains no limiting language; Court of Appeals retains discretion |
| Whether Court of Appeals must invoke Rule 2 to suspend the rules to grant certiorari absent Rule 21 coverage | State: Yes, Rule 2 suspension required to fill procedural gap | Ledbetter: No; invoking common-law certiorari practice suffices without Rule 2 | Court: No. Rule 2 not required; common-law practice and statutory authority permit discretionary issuance of certiorari |
| Proper remedy for Court of Appeals’ procedural refusal | State: Affirm dismissal for lack of procedural grounds | Ledbetter: Remand to consider certiorari on merits | Court: Reverse Court of Appeals and remand for reconsideration under proper discretionary standard |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Stubbs, 368 N.C. 40 (recognizing Court of Appeals’ default jurisdiction to issue certiorari unless a specific statute restricts it)
- State v. Thomsen, 369 N.C. 22 (holding nothing in the Criminal Procedure Act revoked the Court of Appeals’ certiorari jurisdiction in the context presented)
- State v. Knoll, 322 N.C. 535 (establishing magistrate-procedure grounds for dismissal in certain DWI cases)
- Surratt v. State, 276 N.C. 725 (describing certiorari as a discretionary writ reviewable by the court in its discretion)