N.C. Gen. Stat. » Chapter 15A
NC General Statutes

N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-1441 (2026)

Correction of errors by appellate division

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NCLEGncleg.gov (official) JustiaChapter 15A CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Errors of law may be corrected upon appellate review as provided in this Article, except that review of capital cases shall be given priority on direct appeal and in State postconviction proceedings. (1977, c. 711, s. 1; 1995 (Reg. Sess., 1996), c. 719, s. 6.)

 

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6 cases, 1981–2006 · leading case: State v. Bates, 497 S.E.2d 276 (N.C. 1998).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Bates, 497 S.E.2d 276 (N.C. 1998). · cites it 3× “§ 15A-1415(a); gives priority of review to capital cases in both direct appeal and post-conviction proceedings, N.C.G.S. § 15A-1441 (1997); requires appointment of two counsel to prepare a motion for appropriate relief for indigent capital defendants, N.”
State v. Hagans, 628 S.E.2d 776 (N.C. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 2× “See N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-1441(al) (2005) (“A defendant who has been found guilty .”
State v. Bullock, 574 S.E.2d 17 (N.C. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 2× “2d at 729 (citing N.C. Gen. Stat. §§ 15A-1441, -1442(2)(b), -1446(d)(1) and (4)); see also State v.”
State v. Wall, 286 S.E.2d 68 (N.C. 1982). · cites it 2× “See G.S. 15A-1441, -1442(3), -1446(d)(5). See also Rule 2, North Carolina Rules of Appellate Procedure.”
State v. Joseph, 374 S.E.2d 132 (N.C. Ct. App. 1988). · cites it 4× “Section 15A-1444(d) states that the procedure for criminal appeals to the appellate division is that permitted by our own Rules of Appellate Procedure, Chapter 7A and Section 15A-1441 et seq. N.C.G.S. Sec. 15A-1444(d) (1988).”
State v. Sturdivant, 283 S.E.2d 719 (N.C. 1981). “G.S. 15A-1441, -1442(2)(b), -1446(d)(1) and (4).”
— N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-1441(al) — 1 case
State v. Hagans, 628 S.E.2d 776 (N.C. Ct. App. 2006). “See N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-1441(al) (2005) (“A defendant who has been found guilty .”
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.