<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Can the State Obtain Appellate Review of a Judge&#8217;s Order Granting a Defendant&#8217;s MAR?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://nccriminallaw.sog.unc.edu/?feed=rss2&#038;p=3468" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://nccriminallaw.sog.unc.edu/?p=3468</link>
	<description>UNC School of Government Blog</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 23 May 2013 14:40:14 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.5.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Ben Dowling-Sendor</title>
		<link>http://nccriminallaw.sog.unc.edu/?p=3468&#038;cpage=1#comment-8632</link>
		<dc:creator>Ben Dowling-Sendor</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 18 Apr 2012 21:28:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://sogweb.sog.unc.edu/blogs/ncclaw/?p=3468#comment-8632</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I agree that some of the law in this area is confusing, but Starkey was correctly decided.  I admit my bias about this: I represented Mr. Starkey in the state&#039;s attempted appeal.  But I firmly believe that the Court of Appeals&#039; decision was correct.

15A-1445 lists the grounds for a state&#039;s appeal from a Superior Court decision in a criminal case.  Judge Fullwood&#039;s decision to vacate the habitual felon sentence did not fit any of the 15A-1445 criteria.  Regardless of whether the Court of Appeals was correct in ruling that the state could appeal a final judgment but not an order, the state&#039;s appeal still did not satisfy any of the 15A-1445 criteria.  That is, even if the state generally could appeal an order that is not a final judgment, the appeal in Starkey still did not satisfy 15A-1445.  Specifically, the order did not dismiss &quot;criminal charges&quot; (see 15A-1445(a)(1).  Habitual felon status is not a substantive crime, so Judge Fullwood&#039;s order didn&#039;t dismiss a criminal charge -- it vacated a sentence for a drug charge.  Since the appeal did not satisfy the criteria of 15A-1445, it was not an appeal regularly taken.  As a result, 15A-1422(b) also did not apply.

By the way, the COA considered whether 15A-1422 applied because the state had invoked 15A-1422(b) in its brief; the COA was replying to the state&#039;s argument.  One more thing: the Court of Appeals did not have the authority to assert its jurisdiction by invoking N.C. R. App. P. 2.  Rule 2 cannot be used to expand the appellate courts&#039; jurisdiction.  Bailey v. North Carolina Dep&#039;t of Revenue, 353 N.C. 142, 157 (2000).]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I agree that some of the law in this area is confusing, but Starkey was correctly decided.  I admit my bias about this: I represented Mr. Starkey in the state&#8217;s attempted appeal.  But I firmly believe that the Court of Appeals&#8217; decision was correct.</p>
<p>15A-1445 lists the grounds for a state&#8217;s appeal from a Superior Court decision in a criminal case.  Judge Fullwood&#8217;s decision to vacate the habitual felon sentence did not fit any of the 15A-1445 criteria.  Regardless of whether the Court of Appeals was correct in ruling that the state could appeal a final judgment but not an order, the state&#8217;s appeal still did not satisfy any of the 15A-1445 criteria.  That is, even if the state generally could appeal an order that is not a final judgment, the appeal in Starkey still did not satisfy 15A-1445.  Specifically, the order did not dismiss &#8220;criminal charges&#8221; (see 15A-1445(a)(1).  Habitual felon status is not a substantive crime, so Judge Fullwood&#8217;s order didn&#8217;t dismiss a criminal charge &#8212; it vacated a sentence for a drug charge.  Since the appeal did not satisfy the criteria of 15A-1445, it was not an appeal regularly taken.  As a result, 15A-1422(b) also did not apply.</p>
<p>By the way, the COA considered whether 15A-1422 applied because the state had invoked 15A-1422(b) in its brief; the COA was replying to the state&#8217;s argument.  One more thing: the Court of Appeals did not have the authority to assert its jurisdiction by invoking N.C. R. App. P. 2.  Rule 2 cannot be used to expand the appellate courts&#8217; jurisdiction.  Bailey v. North Carolina Dep&#8217;t of Revenue, 353 N.C. 142, 157 (2000).</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
