NC General Statutes

N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-221.2 (2026)

Altering court documents or entering unauthorized judgments

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NCLEGncleg.gov (official) JustiaChapter 14 CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Any person who without lawful authority intentionally enters a judgment upon or materially alters or changes any criminal or civil process, criminal or civil pleading, or other official case record is guilty of a Class H felony. (1979, c. 526; 1979, 2nd Sess., c. 1316, s. 14; 1981, c. 63, s. 1; c. 179, s. 14.)

 

§ 14-222:  Repealed by Session Laws 1993 (Reg.  Sess., 1994), c. 767, s. 30(12).

 

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 2013–2023 · leading case: State v. Martinez, 749 S.E.2d 512 (N.C. Ct. App. 2013).
State v. Martinez, 749 S.E.2d 512 (N.C. Ct. App. 2013). · cites it 7× “Defendant contends that the “filing of a forged document does not violate N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-221.2 .” II. Standard of Review We review the trial court’s denial of a motion to dismiss de novo.”
State v. Golder, 809 S.E.2d 502 (N.C. Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 2× “1 ; and unlawfully altering court records, in violation of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-221.2 . Defendant was also indicted for the misdemeanors of a bail bonding violation, pursuant to N.”
Teasley v. Hoke (M.D.N.C. 2023). · cites it 4× “) Lastly, she asserts that Defendant Hudson violated N.C. Gen Stat. § 14-221.2 because he did not have “the authority to assign himself to any NC superior court sessions,” and thus his actions were also “felonious.”
State v. Golder, 805 S.E.2d 175 (N.C. Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 2× “1 ; and unlawfully altering court records, in violation of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-221.2 . Defendant was also indicted for the misdemeanors of a bail bonding violation, pursuant to N.”
State v. Golder (N.C. 2020). · cites it 2× “G.S. § 14-221.2; (4) a misdemeanor bail bond violation under N.”
State v. Golder (N.C. 2020). · cites it 2× “G.S. § 14-221.2; (4) a misdemeanor bail bond violation under N.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.