Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
8 North Carolina opinions name it 1 courts 2004–2026 4 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by North Carolina courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
State v. Cherygreen2 sentences2021CRAWFORD 2021-NCCOA-272 Opinion of the Court ¶ 13 Defendant argues because “he had entered an Alford plea, [Defendant] had never admitted that he was guilty.” ¶ 14 We have previously held “the fact that the plea that [a] defendant seeks to withdraw was a no contest or an Alford plea does not conclusively establish the factor of assertion of legal innocence for purposes of the Handy analysis.” Chery, 203 N.C. 2021CRAWFORD 2021-NCCOA-272 Opinion of the Court ¶ 13 Defendant argues because “he had entered an Alford plea, [Defendant] had never admitted that he was guilty.” ¶ 14 We have previously held “the fact that the plea that [a] defendant seeks to withdraw was a no contest or an Alford plea does not conclusively establish the factor of assertion of legal innocence for purposes of the Handy analysis.” Chery, 203 N.C. | 1 | 5 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in North Carolina. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Handy
green
2 sentences2004Conclusion Applying the Handy factors to the facts at bar, defendant has not proffered a "fair and just reason" why he should be allowed to withdraw his guilty plea. 326 N.C. 537 -39, 391 S.E.2d at 162 . 2004Conclusion Applying the Handy factors to the facts at bar, defendant has not proffered a "fair and just reason" why he should be allowed to withdraw his guilty plea. 326 N.C. 537 -39, 391 S.E.2d at 162 . | 3 | 2004–2021 |
State v. Marshburn
green
2 sentences2021CRAWFORD 2021-NCCOA-272 Opinion of the Court ¶ 25 The final Handy factors to be considered are “that the defendant did not understand the consequences of the guilty plea [] and that the plea was entered in haste, under coercion or at a time when the defendant was confused.” Marshburn, 109 N.C. 2021CRAWFORD 2021-NCCOA-272 Opinion of the Court ¶ 25 The final Handy factors to be considered are “that the defendant did not understand the consequences of the guilty plea [] and that the plea was entered in haste, under coercion or at a time when the defendant was confused.” Marshburn, 109 N.C. | 2 | 2021–2021 |
Raintree Corp. v. Rowe
green
2 sentences2018In fact, after informing the court that Handy's motion was served seven days prior to the hearing rather than the ten days that is required by statute, BSR's counsel immediately added, "I don't think this is important necessarily." BSR's participation in the hearing is similar to the facts of cases such as Raintree Corp. v. Rowe , 38 N.C. 2018App. 664 , 248 S.E.2d 904 (1978), in which this Court held that: At the hearing on the motions to dismiss, plaintiff stipulated to the use of documents outside the pleadings, [and] participated in oral arguments. ... | 1 | 2018–2018 |
State v. Graham
green
2 sentences2009In State v. Graham, 122 N.C. 2009In State v. Graham, 122 N.C. | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.