State v. Anderson, 635 S.E.2d 899 (N.C. 2006). · Go Syfert
Search
State v. Anderson, 635 S.E.2d 899 (N.C. 2006). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
35 citation events (35 in the last 25 years) across 4 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: United States v. Newbold (ca4, 2007-01-31)
Treatment trajectory · 2006 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2006 2016 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 5 distinct citers. How cited ↗
cited Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Newbold
4th Cir. · 2007 · confidence medium
State v. Allen, 360 N.C. 569 , 635 S.E.2d 899, 899 (2006).
discussed Cited "see" State v. Thomas
N.C. · 2026 · signal: see · confidence high
See id. at 511, 630 S.E.2d at 917 (“North Carolina’s move away from indeterminate sentencing resulted from ‘a perceived evil of disparate sentencing, and . . . a perceived problem in affording trial judges and parole authorities unbridled discretion in imposing sentences.’ ” (alteration in original) (quoting State v. Allen, 359 N.C. 425, 430 , 615 S.E.2d 256, 260 (2005), withdrawn on other grounds, 360 N.C. 569 , 635 S.E.2d 899 (2006) (order)).
cited Cited "see" State v. Singletary
N.C. Ct. App. · 2016 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. Allen, 359 N.C. 425 , 444, 615 S.E.2d 256 , 269 (2005), withdrawn, *388 360 N.C. 569 , 635 S.E.2d 899 (2006).
discussed Cited "see" State v. Graham
N.C. Ct. App. · 2007 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. Allen, 359 N.C. 425, 449 , 615 S.E.2d 256, 272 (2005), withdrawn, 360 N.C. 569 , 635 S.E.2d 899 (2006); see also State v. Lucas, 353 N.C. 568, 598 , 548 S.E.2d 712, 732 (2001) (“Apprendi [the precursor of Blakely] d[id] not declare N.C.G.S. § 15A-1340.16A unconstitutional, but instead require [d] that the State meet the requirements set out in . . .
discussed Cited "see" State v. Coleman
N.C. Ct. App. · 2007 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. Allen, 360 N.C. 569 , 635 S.E.2d 899 (2006). 1 In Recuenco , the United States Supreme Court concluded that “[fjailure to submit a sentencing factor to the jury, like failure to submit an element to the jury, is not structural error,” and thus Blakely errors could be subjected to harmless error analysis.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
STATE of North Carolina
v.
Donald William ANDERSON, Jr.
250P06.
Supreme Court of North Carolina.
Aug 17, 2006.
635 S.E.2d 899
Published

Mercedes O. Chut, Greensboro, for Donald W. Anderson.

[*900] Margaret A. Force, Assistant Attorney General, Roxann Vaneekhoven, District Attorney, for State of NC.

ORDER

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 9th day of May 2006 by Defendant in this matter for discretionary review of the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals pursuant to G.S. 7A-31, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 17th day of August 2006."