An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute 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

NO. COA14-78

NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS

Filed: 1 July 2014

STEPHEN KYPRIANIDES,

Plaintiff,

v. Hertford County

No. 11 CVS 250

PERRY MARTIN,

Defendant.

Appeal by plaintiff from order entered 17 September 2013 by 

Judge Cy A. Grant, Sr. in Hertford County Superior Court. Heard 

in the Court of Appeals 20 May 2014.

Plaintiff-appellant Stephen Kyprianides appearing pro-se. 

No defendant-appellee brief filed.

ELMORE, Judge.

Plaintiff timely appeals from an order entered 17 September

2013 denying his Amended Motion to Enforce a Mediated Settlement 

Agreement. After careful consideration, we reverse, in part, 

and dismiss, in part.

I. Facts

On 19 November 2009, Perry Martin (defendant) represented 

Stephen Kyprianides (plaintiff) on numerous misdemeanor counts 
-2-

of cruelty to animals, N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-360(a), in Bertie

County District Court. On that date, plaintiff pled no contest 

to two of those charges, received 24 months of supervised 

probation, and appealed the judgment to Bertie County Superior 

Court (superior court). Plaintiff, once again, pled no contest 

to the two charges in superior court and received the same

sentence.

Thereafter, plaintiff filed a complaint on 21 June 2011 in 

Hertford County alleging that defendant “intentionally and 

willfully deceived me when he lost prime evidence . . . and made 

statements to the court which strongly implied that I was 

guilty.” The parties were required to participate in courtordered mediation to resolve their dispute. The parties agreed 

to a Mediated Settlement Agreement (the agreement), which stated 

that defendant “shall pay [p]laintiff the total sum of $1,900 

within five (5) days from the date of this Agreement” in 

exchange for plaintiff to file a voluntary dismissal with 

prejudice of the complaint upon receipt and disbursement of the 

settlement proceeds. Defendant complied with that provision. 

However, the agreement also read, “[a]fter completion of 

[p]laintiff’s probation [d]efendant shall cooperate with 

[p]laintiff in having the criminal convictions arising out [sic] 
-3-

the matter in which [d]efendant represented [p]laintiff 

expunged[.]”

Plaintiff filed an “Amended Motion to Enforce [the 

agreement]” on 30 August 2013 on the grounds that defendant 

breached the agreement to expunge the convictions. Moreover, 

plaintiff asked that “the [trial] court issue a mandate ordering 

[defendant] to comply with his signed agreement and, in 

addition” requested that “the [trial] court also order him to 

pay . . . $3,000.00” for probation costs. After a hearing on 

the matter, the trial court entered an order denying plaintiff’s 

motion and concluded that 1.) the law of this State does not 

allow for the crime of cruelty to animals to be expunged, 2.) 

defendant, under existing law, could not perform that provision 

of the agreement, and 3.) it had no legal authority to force 

defendant to pay plaintiff a monetary award “in lieu of 

performing this specific provision[.]”

II. Analysis

a.) Expunction

Plaintiff argues that the trial court erred in concluding 

that a conviction for the crime of misdemeanor cruelty to 

animals cannot be expunged under North Carolina law. We agree. 

“Conclusions of law are reviewed de novo and are subject to 

full review.” State v. Biber, 365 N.C. 162, 168, 712 S.E.2d 
-4-

874, 878 (2011); see also Carolina Power & Light Co. v. City of 

Asheville, 358 N.C. 512, 517, 597 S.E.2d 717, 721 (2004) 

(“Conclusions of law drawn by the trial court from its findings 

of fact are reviewable de novo on appeal.”). 

N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-145.5 (2013) allows for the 

expunction of “nonviolent misdemeanor” or “nonviolent felony” 

convictions without age limitations in narrow circumstances:

A person may file a petition, in the court 

where the person was convicted, for 

expunction of a nonviolent misdemeanor or 

nonviolent felony conviction from the 

person’s criminal record if the person has 

no other misdemeanor or felony convictions, 

other than a traffic violation. The petition 

shall not be filed earlier than 15 years 

after the date of the conviction or when any 

active sentence, period of probation, and 

post-release supervision has been served, 

whichever occurs later.

N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-145.5(c). Moreover, 

if the person is convicted of more than one 

. . . nonviolent misdemeanor in the same 

session of court and none of the . . . 

nonviolent misdemeanors are alleged to have 

occurred after the person had already been

served with criminal process for the 

commission of a nonviolent . . . 

misdemeanor, then the multiple . . . 

nonviolent misdemeanor convictions shall be 

treated as one . . . non violent misdemeanor 

conviction under this section[.]

N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-145.5(b). The statute defines a 

nonviolent misdemeanor as any misdemeanor except:
-5-

(1) A Class A through G felony or a Class A1 

misdemeanor.

(2) An offense that includes assault as an 

essential element of the offense.

(3) An offense requiring registration 

pursuant to Article 27A of Chapter 14 of the 

General Statutes, whether or not the person 

is currently required to register.

(4) Any of the following sex-related or 

stalking offenses: G.S. 14-27.7A(b), 14-

190.7, 14-190.8, 14-190.9, 14-202, 14-

208.11A, 14-208.18, 14-277.3, 14-277.3A, 14-

321.1.

(5) Any felony offense in Chapter 90 of the 

General Statutes where the offense involves 

methamphetamines, heroin, or possession with 

intent to sell or deliver or sell and 

deliver cocaine.

(6) An offense under G.S. 14-12.12(b), 14-

12.13, or 14-12.14, or any offense for which 

punishment was determined pursuant to G.S. 

14-3(c).

(7) An offense under G.S. 14-401.16.

(8) Any felony offense in which a commercial 

motor vehicle was used in the commission of 

the offense.

N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-145.5(a). 

Here, defendant was convicted of two counts of misdemeanor 

cruelty to animals with the same offense date in the same 

session of court. The crime is not a Class A1 misdemeanor, does 

not contain assault as an essential element, does not require 
-6-

sex offender registration, is not a sex-related or stalking 

offense, and is a completely separate offense from any listed in 

(5), (6), (7), or (8) above. See id. 

Thus, contrary to the trial court’s legal conclusions, the 

law of this State allows for a misdemeanor cruelty to animals

conviction to be expunged in specific circumstances. 

Accordingly, defendant, under existing law, could perform the 

provision of the agreement requiring him to “cooperate with 

[p]laintiff in having the [cruelty to animals] convictions” 

expunged, assuming plaintiff is eligible under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 

15A-145.5(c). Thus, we rule that the trial court erred in 

denying plaintiff’s motion to enforce the agreement. 

b.) Ineffective Assistance of Counsel 

Plaintiff also avers that defendant “deceived” him, 

“coerced” him to enter a no contest plea, failed to present the 

trial court with mitigating factors at sentencing, asserted to 

the trial court that he was guilty, and had a conflict of 

interest in the case. Thus, plaintiff contends that he received 

ineffective assistance of counsel. We dismiss plaintiff’s 

argument without prejudice to his right to file appropriate 

motions in the trial court.
-7-

When raising claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, 

the “accepted practice” is to bring these claims in postconviction proceedings, rather than on direct appeal. State v. 

Dockery, 78 N.C. App. 190, 192, 336 S.E.2d 719, 721 

(1985). Here, plaintiff has “prematurely asserted his 

ineffective assistance of counsel claim” by directly appealing 

to this Court. See State v. Stroud, 147 N.C. App. 549, 556, 557 

S.E.2d 544, 548 (2001) (quotation and citation omitted). While 

plaintiff raises potential questions regarding defendant’s

handling of the no contest plea, we are unable to find 

ineffective assistance of counsel from the face of the record. 

A motion for appropriate relief is the proper mechanism to 

resolve this issue. Id.; see also State v. Ware, 125 N.C. App. 

695, 697, 482 S.E.2d 14, 16 (1997) (dismissing the defendant’s 

appeal where the issues could not be determined from the record 

and concluding that “[t]o properly advance these arguments, 

defendant must move for appropriate relief pursuant to G.S. 15A–

1415[ ] and G.S. 15A-1420[ ]”).

III. Conclusion

In sum, we reverse the trial court’s order denying 

plaintiff’s motion to enforce the agreement because a conviction 

for the crime of misdemeanor cruelty to animals can be expunged 
-8-

in limited circumstances under North Carolina law. We dismiss 

plaintiff’s claim for ineffective assistance of counsel without 

prejudice to his right to file appropriate motions in the trial 

court.

Reversed, in part; dismissed, in part. 

Judges McGEE and HUNTER, Robert C., concur.

Report per Rule 30(e).