State v. Dade

Summary

The North Carolina Court of Appeals held that the superior court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to conduct a de novo suppression hearing because the district court had not entered the written preliminary determination required by N.C.G.S. § 20-38.6(f), and the State’s appeal of only a verbal ruling was improper. The court vacated the superior court’s suppression order, rescinded the defendant’s guilty-plea agreement based on mutual mistake concerning appellate rights, and remanded for entry of a written preliminary determination. Chief Judge Dillon dissented, agreeing that certiorari should issue but would have affirmed the conviction subject to review of the suppression ruling.

Holdings

1. Defendant had no statutory right to appeal the superior court's ruling because the district court never entered a final order denying the motion to suppress.
2. Extraordinary circumstances justified issuing a writ of certiorari to review defendant's jurisdictional challenge.
3. The superior court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction because the State appealed only a verbal suppression ruling rather than the written preliminary determination required by N.C.G.S. § 20-38.6(f), and the appeal did not identify a dispute over written factual findings.
4. The superior court's suppression order was null and void and had to be vacated in its entirety.
5. The plea agreement had to be rescinded because defendant pleaded guilty in detrimental reliance on a mutual mistake concerning his right to appeal the suppression ruling.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the Court of Appeals had jurisdiction to review defendant's challenge to the superior court's suppression ruling when the district court had not entered a final suppression order.
2. Whether extraordinary circumstances warranted issuance of a writ of certiorari to review the superior court's interlocutory suppression order.
3. Whether the superior court acquired subject-matter jurisdiction from the State's appeal of the district court's verbal suppression ruling when the district court had not entered the written preliminary determination required by N.C.G.S. § 20-38.6(f).
4. Whether defendant's plea agreement should be rescinded when he pleaded guilty in detrimental reliance on a reserved right to appeal a suppression ruling that was later determined to be void.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded