369 N.C. 707
N.C.2017Background
- Paris Jujuan Todd was convicted of robbery with a dangerous weapon after a June 2012 trial and appealed; the Court of Appeals affirmed in Todd I.
- Todd filed a motion for appropriate relief (MAR) in October 2014 asserting insufficient evidence and ineffective assistance of appellate counsel for failing to raise that issue on direct appeal.
- The trial court denied the MAR without an evidentiary hearing, finding the record and the Court of Appeals opinion showed sufficiency and effective appellate assistance.
- A divided Court of Appeals reversed, concluding the State presented insufficient evidence and that appellate counsel was ineffective for not raising sufficiency, and ordered the trial court to vacate the conviction (Todd II).
- The State appealed to the North Carolina Supreme Court based on the dissent; the Supreme Court first addressed whether it had jurisdiction in light of statutory limits on review of MAR decisions.
- The Supreme Court held it had constitutional jurisdiction, found the record inadequate to determine whether appellate counsel’s omission was a reasonable strategic choice, and reversed and remanded for further factfinding.
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | Todd's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Supreme Court has jurisdiction to hear an appeal from a divided Court of Appeals decision arising from a MAR under N.C.G.S. § 7A-30(2) given § 7A-28(a) limits | Statute § 7A-28(a) precludes further review of MAR decisions; Court lacks review | Court of Appeals dissent allowed State appeal; Supreme Court may review under constitutional authority | Supreme Court exercised Article IV, §12 supervisory jurisdiction and heard the appeal |
| Whether appellate counsel was ineffective for not raising insufficiency of the evidence on direct appeal | Appellate counsel likely made a strategic decision to omit the issue; performance not shown deficient without record | Omission was deficient and likely prejudicial; Todd would have prevailed if raised | Record insufficient to determine deficiency; remand required for factual inquiry into counsel’s strategy |
| Whether the record supported reversal on the merits for insufficiency of the evidence | COA majority: evidence insufficient; State defends sufficiency | Todd: evidence was insufficient to prove underlying offense | Supreme Court did not decide sufficiency on merits; remanded for further proceedings to develop record |
| Whether trial court erred by denying MAR without an evidentiary hearing on ineffective-assistance-of-appellate-counsel claim | Trial court relied on record and COA opinion; no hearing needed per State | Denial without hearing foreclosed factfinding on counsel’s strategy and reasonableness | Supreme Court instructed remand for trial court factfinding (and hearing if needed) to assess strategy and prejudice |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (established two‑prong test for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- Jones v. Barnes, 463 U.S. 745 (appellate counsel may winnow arguments; strategic omissions generally protected)
- McMann v. Richardson, 397 U.S. 759 (cited re: right to effective counsel)
- State v. Braswell, 312 N.C. 553 (North Carolina discussion of ineffective‑assistance standard)
- State v. Ellis, 361 N.C. 200 (state constitutional authority over Court review cited)
- State v. Stanley, 288 N.C. 19 (supervisory authority to ensure administration of justice)
- Provenzano v. Singletary, 148 F.3d 1327 (factfinding required to determine strategic choices on appeal)