369 N.C. 22
N.C.2016Background
- Defendant Zachary Thomsen pled guilty to two child-sex felonies carrying a mandatory minimum 300-month sentence; the trial court consolidated and imposed 300–420 months.
- Immediately after sentencing, the trial court granted its own motion for appropriate relief, concluded the mandatory minimum violated the Eighth Amendment as applied, vacated the judgment, and resentenced Thomsen to 144–233 months under Structured Sentencing.
- The State filed a petition for writ of certiorari in the Court of Appeals to review the trial court’s sua sponte grant of appropriate relief; the Court of Appeals issued the writ and, in a divided opinion, held it had jurisdiction, found the original mandatory sentence constitutional, vacated the trial court’s relief, and remanded for a new sentencing hearing.
- Defendant argued the Court of Appeals lacked subject-matter jurisdiction to review a trial court’s sua sponte grant of appropriate relief (relying on State v. Starkey), and that issuance of the writ by a petition panel could not bind the merits panel.
- The Supreme Court reviewed jurisdiction de novo and addressed whether the Court of Appeals could issue certiorari to review a trial court’s grant of relief on its own motion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Court of Appeals has jurisdiction to issue writ of certiorari to review a trial court's sua sponte grant of appropriate relief | The State: §7A-32(c) and absence of limiting language in §15A-1422 permit certiorari review of such grants | Thomsen: Starkey bars appellate review of a trial court’s sua sponte grant of appropriate relief; Court of Appeals lacked jurisdiction | Court: Affirmed jurisdiction under §7A-32(c); Stubbs controls; Starkey overruled |
| Whether §15A-1422 limits certiorari review of sua sponte relief under §15A-1420(d) | State: §15A-1422 contains no limiting language removing certiorari power for sua sponte grants | Thomsen: §15A-1422’s silence means no review of sua sponte grants | Court: Silence means no restriction; certiorari power remains |
| Whether Rule 21 or appellate procedural rules prohibit issuance of certiorari | State: Statutory grant of jurisdiction controls; rules cannot enlarge or limit court jurisdiction | Thomsen: Rule 21 precludes issuance of writ here | Court: If statute gives jurisdiction, Rule 21 cannot remove it; Rule 21 does not bar certiorari |
| Whether the petition panel’s decision to issue the writ bound the later opinion panel on jurisdiction (law-of-the-case issue) | State: Issuance of writ implied ruling; law of the case should bind panel | Thomsen: Issuance did not bind the merits panel; court lacked jurisdiction | Court: Moot—because Supreme Court decided jurisdiction de novo; expressed no binding ruling on law-of-the-case question |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Stubbs, 368 N.C. 40, 770 S.E.2d 74 (2015) (Court of Appeals has certiorari jurisdiction to review rulings on motions for appropriate relief where §15A-1422 contains no limiting language)
- State v. Starkey, 177 N.C. App. 264, 628 S.E.2d 424 (2006) (previously held Court of Appeals lacked jurisdiction to review a trial court’s sua sponte grant of appropriate relief)
- State v. Oates, 366 N.C. 264, 732 S.E.2d 571 (2012) (issues of subject-matter jurisdiction reviewed de novo)
- North Carolina Nat’l Bank v. Va.-Carolina Builders, 307 N.C. 563, 299 S.E.2d 629 (1983) (law-of-the-case doctrine discussion)
- State v. Blackwell, 359 N.C. 814, 618 S.E.2d 213 (2005) (discussion of limits on further review of Court of Appeals decisions on motions for appropriate relief)