Appropriate relief—adequate representation—motion denied—The trial court's decision to deny defendant's motion for appropriate relief was supported by the evidence where the claim for ineffective assistance of counsel rested on an alleged conversation between a witness and defendant's trial counsel concerning a probation violation proceeding prior to this trial, which raised the possibility of a conflict of interest. The trial court found that the alleged conversation never happened. State v. Hyman, 371 N.C. 363 (2018) (Author: Justice Sam Ervin, IV)

Appropriate relief—inability to raise in prior proceedings—The defendant in a first-degree murder prosecution was not in a position to adequately raise his ineffective assistance of counsel claim in prior direct appeals, and his motion for appropriate relief was not subject to the procedural bar created by N.C.G.S. § 15A-1419(a)(3). State v. Hyman, 371 N.C. 363 (2018) (Author: Justice Sam Ervin, IV)

Keeping or maintaining a car used for the keeping or selling of a controlled substance—keeping a car—possession for a short period, or intent to retain possession, for a certain use—Where defendant was convicted of keeping or maintaining a car which is used for the keeping or selling of a controlled substance in violation of N.C.G.S. § 90-108(a)(7) and where he argued on appeal that the trial court erred by denying his motion to dismiss, the Supreme Court held that, when viewed in the light most favorable to the State, it could reasonably be inferred from the evidence at trial that defendant had "kept" the Cadillac he was driving. The word "keep" in the relevant portion of subsection 90-108(a)(7) refers to possessing something for at least a short period of time-or intending to retain possession of something in the future-for a certain use. During the hour and a half of surveillance, officers saw defendant arrive at a hotel in a Cadillac, stay in a hotel room for a while, and then leave in the Cadillac. He was the only person they saw using the Cadillac, and there was a service receipt in the Cadillac bearing defendant's name and dated two and a half months before defendant's arrest. A reasonable jury thus could conclude that defendant had possessed the Cadillac for about two and a half months, at the very least. State v. Rogers, 371 N.C. 397 (2018) (Author: Chief Justice Mark Martin)

Keeping or maintaining a car used for the keeping or selling of a controlled substance—keeping a controlled substance—storing rather than merely transporting—Where defendant was convicted of keeping or maintaining a car which is used for the keeping or selling of a controlled substance in violation of N.C.G.S. § 90-108(a)(7) and where he argued on appeal that the trial court erred by denying his motion to dismiss, the Supreme Court held that, when viewed in the light most favorable to the State, it could reasonably be inferred from the evidence at trial that defendant was using the Cadillac he was driving to "keep" crack cocaine. The word "keeping" in the relevant portion of subsection 90-108(a)(7) refers to the storing of illegal drugs. The cocaine was hidden in the gas compartment of the car, and the circumstances were such that a reasonable jury could conclude that defendant was storing rather than merely transporting the drugs in the car. State v. Rogers, 371 N.C. 397 (2018) (Author: Chief Justice Mark Martin)

Habitual felon—conviction of lesser-included offense—Where the habitual felon indictment returned against defendant alleged that defendant had committed the offenses of robbery with a dangerous weapon and had been convicted of common law robbery, the Supreme Court held that the habitual felon indictment was not fatally defective. The indictment contained all of the information required by N.C.G.S. § 14-7.3 and gave defendant adequate notice of the charge against him. Further, common law robbery is a lesser-included offense of robbery with a dangerous weapon, and an indictment for an offense includes all the lesser degrees of the same crime. State v. Langley, 371 N.C. 389 (2018) (Author: Justice Sam Ervin, IV)

Custodial interrogation—waiver of juvenile rights—The trial court did not err by concluding that juvenile defendant knowingly, willingly, and understandingly waived his juvenile rights pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 7B-2101 before making certain incriminating statements. Evidence in the record tended to show that the detective advised defendant of his juvenile rights in spoken English, written Spanish, and written English; defendant initialed each of the rights on the juvenile rights waiver form and signed it; defendant answered affirmatively that he understood his rights; and defendant understood what the detective was saying. While the record did contain evidence that would have supported a different conclusion, the evidence supported the trial court's conclusion that defendant waived his juvenile rights. State v. Saldierna, 371 N.C. 407 (2018) (Author: Justice Sam Ervin, IV)

Pleadings—Rule 9(j)—amendment—relation back—A plaintiff in a medical malpractice action may file an amended complaint under Rule 15(a) of the N.C. Rules of Civil Procedure to cure a defect in a Rule 9(j) certification when the expert review and certification occurred before the filing of the original complaint. Further, such an amended complaint may relate back under Rule 15(c). In this case, plaintiff's amended complaint corrected a technical pleading error and made clear that the expert review required by Rule 9(j) occurred before the filing of the original complaint. The trial court's denial of plaintiff's motion to amend as being futile was based on a misapprehension of the law. Vaughan v. Mashburn, 371 N.C. 428 (2018) (Author: Justice Robin Hudson)

Misdemeanor—citation for DWI—tolling—A citation issued to defendant for driving while impaired tolled the statute of limitations for misdemeanors. The citation was a constitutionally and statutorily proper criminal pleading that conveyed jurisdiction to the district court to try defendant. The General Assembly did not intend the illogical result that an otherwise valid criminal pleading that vests jurisdiction in the trial court would not also toll the statute of limitations. State v. Curtis, 371 N.C. 355 (2018) (Author: Justice Barbara Jackson)

Consolidation of cases—by judge who did not preside over trial—error corrected by presiding judge—Where two cases were consolidated before trial by one superior court judge and then tried by another superior court judge, the Supreme Court held that the first judge erred in consolidating the cases because he was not scheduled to preside over the consolidated trial, but the judge who presided at trial effectively corrected that error, leaving the trial and judgment untainted. The Supreme Court reaffirmed the rule from Oxendine v. Catawba County Department of Social Services, 303 N.C. 699 (1981)-that "the discretionary ruling of one superior court judge to consolidate claims for trial may not be forced upon another superior court judge who is to preside at that trial"-but clarified that the judge who presides at a consolidated trial can effectively correct the procedural error that an earlier judge makes under Oxendine. Boone Ford, Inc. v. IME Scheduler, Inc., 371 N.C. 345 (2018) (Author: Chief Justice Mark Martin)