Legal Opinion

State v. Hoots

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

Decided September 17, 1985No. 8422SC1084PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

BECTON, Judge.

From a judgment on rehearing denying defendant’s Motion for Appropriate Relief, defendant, Richard Anthony Hoots, appeals. Because defendant’s motion was based on “newly discovered” evidence, and the time for appeal had expired, defendant also seeks relief by writ of certiorari.

Defendant was convicted of armed robbery at a jury trial in February 1980. Defendant filed a Motion for Appropriate Relief, seeking, in substance, to have his conviction reversed and a new trial granted on the ground of newly discovered exculpatory evidence that Darrell Shaw, and not the defendant,…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. State v. BeaverSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1976
  2. State v. HaywoodSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1978
  3. State v. SprinkleCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1980

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Richard Anthony Hoots v. Harry Allsbrook Attorney General of the State of North Carolina, Rufus L. EdmistenCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1986
  2. State v. GarnerCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1999
  3. State v. RobinsonCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2014
  4. Richard Anthony Hoots v. Harry Allsbrook Attorney General of the State of North Carolina, Rufus L. EdmistenCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1986
  5. State v. WilliamsonCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2010

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API