From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

State v. Shoff

Supreme Court of North Carolina
Feb 1, 1996
342 N.C. 638 (N.C. 1996)

Opinion

No. 244PA95

Filed 9 February 1996

Appeal and Error § 115 (NCI4th) — order denying double jeopardy claim — no immediate appeal The Court of Appeals correctly held that an order denying defendant's motion to dismiss a driving while impaired charge on double jeopardy grounds was interlocutory and nonappealable.

Am Jur 2d, Appellate Review § 239.

On discretionary review pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 7A-31 of a decision of the Court of Appeals, 118 N.C. App. 724, 456 S.E.2d 875 (1995), dismissing as interlocutory and nonappealable defendant's attempted appeal from an order entered by Allen (C. Walter), J., on 23 February 1994 in Superior Court, Buncombe County, denying defendant's motion to dismiss (on double jeopardy grounds) a charge that defendant was driving while impaired. Heard in the Supreme Court 15 December 1995.

Michael F. Easley, Attorney General, by Isaac T. Avery, III, Special Deputy Attorney General, for the State.

Wade Hall for defendant-appellant.


The Court of Appeals correctly held that the order at issue was interlocutory and nonappealable. State v. Henry, 318 N.C. 408, 348 S.E.2d 593 (1986). The decision of the Court of Appeals is therefore

AFFIRMED.


Summaries of

State v. Shoff

Supreme Court of North Carolina
Feb 1, 1996
342 N.C. 638 (N.C. 1996)
Case details for

State v. Shoff

Case Details

Full title:STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. CURTIS BALDWIN SHOFF

Court:Supreme Court of North Carolina

Date published: Feb 1, 1996

Citations

342 N.C. 638 (N.C. 1996)
466 S.E.2d 277

Citing Cases

State v. Schalow

Defendant had no statutory right to appeal Judge Thornburg's interlocutory order. See State v. Shoff , 118…

State v. Pimental

In North Carolina, a defendant's right to appeal in a criminal proceeding is purely a creation of state…