An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute

controlling legal authority. Citation is disfavored, but may be permitted in accordance with the provisions of Rule 30(e)(3) of the North Carolina Rules of Appellate Procedure.

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NORTH CAROLINA

No. COA 14

- 1310 Filed: 19 May 2015 Mecklenburg County, No. 12 CR 246557 STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA

v. BRENT TYLER MILLER
Appeal by the State from order entered 2 June 2014 by Judge Linwood O. Foust in Mecklenburg County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 22 April 2015

. Attorney General Roy Cooper, by Assistant Attorney General Derrick C. Mertz, for the State. Tin, Fu lton, Walker, & Owen, PLLC, by Noell P. Tin, for defendant.

TYSON , Judge.

The State appeals from an order orally rendered in superior court affirming the district court’s order dismissing Defendant’s criminal charges. We dismiss the appeal. I. Background Defendant was charged with driving whi le impaired on 26 October 2012. On 7 June 2013, Defendant appeared befor e the district court on his pre trial “motion to dismi ss based upon an illegal stop.” The district court heard the charging officer’sSTATE V
. MILLER Opinion of the Court

- 2

- testimony, and concluded the officer was without probable cau se to stop Defendant’s vehicle. The district court entered a written order on 12 July 2013, whic h included its findings of fact and conclusions of law, and allowed Defendant’s motion to dismiss. The State filed notice of appeal to superior court from the district court’s order pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 20

- 38.7, and requested a de novo hearing in superior
court. Defendant filed a motion to dismiss the State’s appeal to superior court, and

a rgued the State’s notice of appeal was insufficient, because it did not include specific objections to the district court’s findings of fact or order

. The matter was heard before the superior court on 12 November 2013. After “hearing arguments of counsel and [a] review of the court file and various documents presented by counsel,” t he superior court granted Defendant’s motion to dismiss the State’s appeal and denied the State’s request for a de novo hearing . The c ourt determined “ the State could not articulate in the written Notice of Appeal which specifi c FINDINGS OF FACT or CONCLUSIO N S OF LAW the State objected.” The superior court reviewed the district court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law, and affir med the district court’s order. The s uperior court remanded the case to the district court for entry of a final order. On 16 January 2014, the district court entered a final order granting Defendant’ s pretrial motion and dismissed the charge. That same day, the State filed

“ notice of appea l ” to superior court. The “ notice of appeal ” states the district court’sSTATE V
. MILLER Opinion of the Court

- 3

- final order granting Defendant’s motion to suppress and dismissing the charge was “contrary to law and [the State] appeals the final ruling to [s]uperior [c]ourt.” The matter came b efore the superior court on 2 June 2014. The prosecutor stated that “the State [was] not asking for a new hearing on the matter” and was “just asking the [ c ] ourt to affirm the district court’s final order,” because “that’s the only way for the State to a p peal to the Court of Appeals.” The court orally affirmed the district court’s judgment in open court. The State entered oral notice of appeal. The State filed written notice of appeal from the superior court’s 2 June 2014 order, and filed a written cert ification that the appeal is not taken for the purpose of delay pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A

- 1432(e). II. Issues On appeal, the State argues the superior court erred on 12 November 2013 by denying the State an evidentiary hearing de novo on its appe al from the d istrict court’s order granting D efendant’s motion to suppress. Defendant filed a motion to dismiss the State’s appeal contemporaneously with his brief, and argues the State failed to give adequate notice of appeal to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court. Defendant contends the State’s appeal should be dismissed because the State failed to designate the 12 November 2013 order in its notice of appeal, and the statute cited in the State’s notice of appeal, N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A

1445(a)(1), doe s not authorize the State to appeal.STATE V
. MILLER Opinion of the Court

- 4

- I I I. The State’s Right to Appeal The State’s right to appeal in a criminal pr o ceeding is entirely statutory. State v. Murrell , 54 N.C. App. 342, 343, 283 S.E.2d 173, 173 (1981), disc. review denied , 304 N .C. 731, 288 S.E.2d 804 (1982). S tatutes granting the State a right of app e al must be strictly construed. Id

. As part of the Motor Vehicle Driver Protection Act of 2006, our legislature afforded the State a right to appeal from the district court’s “prel iminary indication” of whether a defendant’s motion to suppress should be granted or denied in an implied consent case. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 20

- 38.6(f) (2013), N.C. Gen. Stat. § 20

- 38.7 (2013). After hearing the d efendant’s motion to suppress, “ [t] he [distri ct court] judge shall set forth in writing the findings of fact and conclusions of law and preliminarily indicate whether the moti on should be granted or denied.” N.C. Gen. Stat. § 20

- 38.6(f) (2013). “ If the judge preliminarily indicates the motion shoul d be granted, the judge shall not enter a final judgment on the motion until after the State has appealed to superior court or has indicated it does not intend to appe al .” Id

. The district court followed this pro cedure correctly in this case. The State’s appeal from the district court judge’s “preliminary indication” is governed by N.C. Gen. Stat. § 20

- 38.7 (2013). The statute provides:

(a) The State may appeal to superior court any district court preliminary determination granting a motion to suppres s or dismiss. If there is a dispute about the findings of fact, the superior court shall not be bound by the findings of the district court but shall determine the matter de novo.STATE V
. MILLER Opinion of the Court

- 5

- Any further appeal shall be governed by Article 90 of Chapter 15A of the G eneral Statutes. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 20

- 38.7(a) (2013). After the superior court considers the State’s appeal from the district court’s preliminary indicatio n pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 20

- 38.7(a), the court must “ enter an order remanding the matter to the district court with instructions to finally grant or deny t he defendant’s pretrial motion.” State v. Fowler , 197 N.C. App. 1, 11, 676 S.E.2d 523 , 535 (2009), disc. review denied , 364 N.C. 129, 696 S.E.2d 695 (2010). The statute does not provide the S tate a statutory right to appeal to the Appellate Division from the superior court’s interlocutory order remanding the case to the district court for entry of a final order. Id. at 7, 676 S.E.2d at 532

. Furthermore, the State does not have a statutory right to appeal to the Appellate Division from the district court’s final order granting a defendant’s pretrial motion to suppress evidence. Id . at 29 , 676 S.E.2d at 546. Our Court has held “ the State has a right of appeal to the superior court from a di strict court’s final dismissal of criminal charges against a defendant pursuan t to N.C.G.S. § 15A

- 1432(a)(1). Id . at 30, 676 S.E.2d at 546 (emphasis in original). The State also has a right of appeal to the Appellate Division from a superior court’s order affirming a district court’s dismissal purs u a nt to N.C.G.S. § 15A

- 1432(e).” Id. The statute , entitled “Appeals by State from district court judge,” provides:STATE V
. MILLER Opinion of the Court

- 6

- (a) Unless the rule against double jeopardy prohibits further prosecution, the State may appea l from the district court judge to the superior court: (1) When there has been a decision or judgment dismissing criminal charges as to one or more counts[.]

. . . . (e) If the superior court finds that the order of the district court was correct, it must enter an order affirming the judgment of the district court. The State may appeal the order of the superior court to the appellate division upon certificate by the district attorney to the judge who affirmed the judgment that the appeal is not taken for the purpose of delay. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A

- 1432 (a) and (e) (2013). Here, while the State’s notice of appeal cites N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A

- 1445(a)(1) as the statute authorizing the appeal, the State is purporting to appeal from the superior court’s 2 J une 2014 order affirming the district court’s dismissal of the criminal charges pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat § 15A

- 1432. See State v. Bryan , __ N.C. App. __,

__ 749 S.E.2d 900 , 903 (2013), disc. review denied , 367 N.C. 330, 755 S.E.2d 615 (2014) ( N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A

- 1445(a)(1) is “applicable to final orders issued by a superior court acting in its original jurisdiction .” (Emphasis supplied) )

. On 2 June 2014, the superior court orally affirmed the judgment of the district court dismissing Defend ant’s charges. However, the record on appeal in this case does not include a written copy of the order appealed from. “‘Entry’ of an order occurs when it is reduced to writing, signed by the trial court, and filed with the clerk ofSTATE V
. MILLER Opinion of the Court

- 7

- court.” State v. Gary , 132 N.C. App. 40, 42, 510 S.E.2d 387, 388, cert. denied , 350 N.C. 312, 535 S.E.2d 35 (1999); see also Southern Furn. Hdwe., Inc. v. Branch Banking & Tr. Co. , 136 N.C. App. 695, 70 2, 526 S.E.2d 197, 201 (2000) (“ When an oral order is not reduced to writing , it is non

- existen t . . . .” (citations omitted ) )

. IV. Conclusion It is not appropriate for us to treat the State’s purported notice of appeal as a petition to issue the w rit of certiorari in this case. See N.C. R. App. P. Rule 21(a) (1) (2015) (The writ may be “issued to permit review of the judgments and orders of trial tribunals when the right to prosecute an appeal has been lost by failure to take timely action, or when no right of appeal from an interlocutory order exists, ” or for review of an order of the trial court denying a motion for appropriate relief . (Emphasis supplied)). In the absence of a written order, we are without jurisdiction to hear the State’s appeal. The appeal is dismissed. DISMISSED. Judges CALABRIA and STROUD concur. Report per Rule 30(e).