Court Opinion

ID: 9580261
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 22:03:39.843894+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:36:10.556555
License: Public Domain

Judge CLARK
dissenting.
I agree with the majority that at trial the State failed to offer evidence sufficient to submit the charges to the jury, but I do not agree that there was a factual basis for the no contest pleas.
A judge may not accept a plea of no contest without first determining that there is a factual basis for the plea. N.C. Gen. Stat. 15A-1022(c). Defendant did not in the Transcript of Plea state orally or in writing that she was guilty of the charges. I find nothing in the record on appeal to support the finding in the court’s Plea Adjudication that there was a factual basis for the no contest plea other than the evidence offered at the trial on the other six charges of forgery and uttering, and I agree with the majority decision that judgment of nonsuit (dismissal) should have been allowed.
In State v. Dickens, 299 N.C. 76, 261 S.E. 2d 183 (1980), the record on appeal contained “an abundance of information before the trial judge to constitute a factual basis for the pleas of guilty and to support their acceptance.” I do not interpret Dickens as meaning that the court finding of a factual basis need not be supported.
Further, the evidence at trial on the six charges of forgery and uttering negates a factual basis since the evidence was not *595sufficient to support guilty verdicts. All fourteen charges of forgery and uttering allege that defendant forged the name of Alice Alston, beginning 31 August 1978 and ending on 6 October 1978. The six charges at trial involve checks made and uttered between these two dates. The testimony of Alice Alston tended to show that she gave to defendant blanket authority to sign the checks.
In my opinion the pleas of no contest and the judgment based thereon should be vacated.