Legal Opinion · Concurrence

State v. Cozart

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

Decided June 19, 2018No. COA 17-535Published

1ConcurrenceZachary, Judge

As Defendant did not object in the trial court to the constitutionality of his enrollment in satellite-based monitoring, in order to reach the merits of that argument this Court would be required-in addition to allowing certiorari-to take the extraordinary step of invoking Rule 2. The Majority declines to do so, and I concur. I write separately to convey my disquiet with this outcome.

In State v. Bishop , we noted that a petition for writ of certiorari " 'must show merit[.]' " State v. Bishop , --- N.C. App. ----, ----, 805 S.E.2d 367, 369 (2017) (quoting State v. Grundler , 251 N.C. 177, 189,…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. State v. HartSupreme Court of North Carolina · 2007
  2. State v. GrundlerSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1959
  3. State v. BishopCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2017
  4. State v. HillCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2016

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API