Case ID: nc_328/html/0082-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. DEAN DARWIN FOLAND and MATTHEW ERVIN PURDY
    No. 62PA90
    (Filed 10 January 1991)
    On the State’s and defendants’ petitions for discretionary review and defendants’ appeal from a decision of the Court of Appeals, 97 N.C. App. 309, 388 S.E.2d 195 (1990). Heard in the Supreme Court 8 October 1990.
    
      Lacy H. Thornburg, Attorney General, by James Peeler Smith, Special Deputy Attorney General, for the State-appellant and appellee.
    
    
      Malcolm Ray Hunter, Jr., Appellate Defender, for defendantappellee and appellant Foland; Robin E. Hudson for defendantappellee and appellant Purdy.
    
   PER CURIAM.

We initially allowed the State’s petition for discretionary review of the Court of Appeals’ holding that the indictments must be dismissed under the Speedy Trial Act, N.C.G.S. § 15A-701, et seq., repealed by Chapter 688, 1989 Session Laws. Defendants appealed and petitioned for discretionary review of the Court of Appeals’ holding that there was no error in the trial court’s denial of defendants’ motion to suppress certain evidence, a holding with which Judge Greene disagreed. We allowed defendants’ petition and denied the State’s motion to dismiss defendants’ appeal.

After giving careful consideration to the oral arguments and new briefs of the State and defendants, the Court determines that the petitions for discretionary review were improvidently allowed. This leaves undisturbed the decision of the Court of Appeals that the indictments against defendants be dismissed and makes moot defendants’ appeal, which we now dismiss because it is moot.

Petitions for discretionary review improvidently allowed; appeal dismissed.