State v. Todd, 790 S.E.2d 349

Todd was convicted of robbery with a dangerous weapon in 2012 and appealed; this Court denied relief in Todd I.
Todd filed a later MAR arguing insufficient evidence and ineffective assistance of appellate counsel; the trial court denied MAR without a hearing.
The MAR petition argued fingerprint evidence was insufficient to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and that the prior appeal failed to challenge the evidence.
The current opinion holds that the MAR should have been granted because the fingerprint evidence did not establish sufficient circumstances to show it was impressed at the time of the crime, and appellate counsel was ineffective for not raising sufficiency on appeal.
The court remands to vacate Todd's conviction and grant MAR; it emphasizes the fingerprint evidence alone was insufficient and lacked corroborating 'other circumstances'.
Concurring and dissenting opinions discuss Irick guidance and whether the State’s circumstantial evidence together with the fingerprint could sustain a conviction.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was MAR properly denied under law-of-case?	Todd argues law-of-the-case barred reexamination of sufficiency.	Todd argues prior decision did not decide sufficiency; MAR should be granted.	MAR reversal; law-of-the-case did not bar sufficiency review.
Is the fingerprint evidence alone sufficient to sustain conviction?	State asserts fingerprint plus surrounding facts support guilt.	Fingerprint alone is insufficient without corroborating circumstances.	Insufficient; cannot show fingerprints were impressed only at time of crime.
Did appellate counsel's performance violate Strickland by not raising sufficiency on appeal?	Todd asserts ineffective assistance for not challenging sufficiency earlier.	Counsel could reasonably focus on stronger issues; insufficient evidence remains key.	Appellate counsel deficient; MAR should be granted.

State v. Irick, 291 N.C. 480 (1977) (fingerprint corroboration requires 'other circumstances' to show time of crime)
State v. Cross, 345 N.C. 713 (1997) (fingerprint on a mobile object can support guilt with corroborating evidence)
State v. Scott, 296 N.C. 519 (1979) (thumbprint alone insufficient; contextual evidence required)
State v. Miller, 289 N.C. 1 (1975) (premises-related fingerprints and premises knowledge notions)
First Charter Bank v. American Children's Home, 203 N.C.App. 574 (2010) (law-of-the-case doctrine application in appellate review)
Goetz v. N.C. Dep't of Health & Human Servs., 203 N.C.App. 421 (2010) (law-of-the-case flexible application; determine what was decided)
Hayes v. City of Wilmington, 243 N.C.535 (1956) (law-of-the-case considerations; precedent stability)
State v. Thomas, 291 N.C. 687 (1977) (fingerprint context with corroborating evidence requirements)
State v. Blackmon, 208 N.C.App. 397 (2010) (fingerprint on object near victim; sufficiency analysis context)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-prong test for ineffective assistance of counsel)