State v. Corpening
Court of Appeals of North Carolina
1Opinion of the Court
MARTIN, Judge.
Defendant’s sole contention on appeal is that the trial court erred by denying his motion to suppress evidence discovered during a warrantless search of his motor vehicle. We find no error in the trial court’s ruling.
The scope of review on appeal of the denial of a defendant’s motion to suppress is strictly limited to determining whether the trial court’s findings of fact are supported by competent evidence, in which case they are binding on appeal, and in turn, whether those findings support the trial court’s conclusions of law. State v. Cooke, 306 N.C. 132, 291 S.E.2d 618…
2Cases cited16 opinions
- Carroll v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1925
- State v. CookeSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1982
- State v. CherrySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1979
- State v. HarrisSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1971
- State v. GreenwoodSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1981
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by17 opinions
- State v. KornegayCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2002
- State v. CabeCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2000
- State v. JohnsonCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2006
- State v. BaileyCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2001
- State v. BurtonCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2017
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.