State v. LoftisÂ
250 N.C. App. 449
| N.C. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- On 9/15/2012 Brittany Jefferson called 911 after a silver Jeep driven by Loftis exhibited aggressive conduct in a Burger King drive‑thru; Officer Jordan observed the Jeep leave and followed it.
- Officer Jordan stopped Loftis after observing an abrupt lane change and a wide right turn; Loftis was cited for DWI and gave breath samples over the legal limit.
- Loftis moved to suppress the stop and breath results; the district court issued a pre‑trial indication finding lack of reasonable suspicion (11/19/2014). The State appealed to superior court, which affirmed (order filed 5/15/2015). The case was remanded to district court.
- The State obtained a continuance to 6/16/2015 and informed the court it intended to seek certiorari review, but did not file a petition before the final setting on 6/16/2015; the State refused to call the case and the district court sua sponte dismissed for failure to prosecute.
- The State appealed the dismissal to superior court; Loftis moved to dismiss the State’s appeal. Judge Fitch granted the motion to dismiss the State’s appeal and alternatively affirmed the district court’s dismissal (order filed 9/23/2015). The State petitioned this Court for certiorari, which was denied.
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | Loftis' Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the superior court erred by dismissing the State's appeal for failure to specify a basis under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A‑1432(b) | Notice of appeal was sufficient; case should proceed on the merits | Notice failed to specify statutory basis for appeal to superior court as required | Superior court properly dismissed the appeal for failure to specify the basis |
| Whether the district court erred in dismissing the criminal charge sua sponte after the State declined to call the case post‑suppression | Dismissal was improper; State intended to seek certiorari and should not be penalized | State had constructive obligation to move to dismiss when no admissible evidence remained; court may manage docket and dismiss for failure to prosecute | District court properly dismissed the case sua sponte for failure to prosecute; superior court correctly affirmed |
| Whether this Court should grant certiorari to review the suppression ruling after procedural defaults | The State sought certiorari to reach the suppression merits | Procedural history (missed filing, last continuance, failure to dismiss) bars extraordinary review | Court denied certiorari and declined to reach suppression merits |
| Ethical/prosecutorial duties when admissible evidence is gone | State argued it sought review and should not be required to dismiss immediately | Prosecutor must dismiss charges when no admissible evidence exists per NC State Bar ethics opinion | Court noted the ethics opinion supported the district court’s dismissal for State inaction |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Fowler, 197 N.C. App. 1 (2009) (State may not appeal certain superior court suppression affirmances)
- State v. Palmer, 197 N.C. App. 201 (2009) (same principle regarding State appeals)
- State v. Osterhoudt, 222 N.C. App. 620 (2012) (discussing petition for certiorari as State's remedy)
- Simeon v. Hardin, 339 N.C. 358 (1994) (courts have inherent authority to manage dockets)
- State v. Hinchman, 192 N.C. App. 657 (2008) (appeal notice must specify bases under statutory requirements)
- State v. Hamrick, 110 N.C. App. 60 (1993) (same point on specificity of notice of appeal)