Court Opinion

ID: 9567652
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 19:56:25.311344+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T10:00:29.980021
License: Public Domain

ERVIN, Judge,
concurring.
Although I concur in the Court’s opinion, I do so in light of the positions expressed in my separate opinion in State v. Maready (No. COA09-171-2) (7 July 2010), which discusses the impact of the decision of the United States Supreme Court in Florida v. Nixon, 543 U.S. 175, 125 S. Ct. 551, 160 L. Ed. 2d 565 (2004), on the continued validity of State v. Harbison, 315 N.C. 175, 337 S.E.2d 504 (1985), cert. denied, 476 U.S. 1123, 106 S. Ct. 1992, 90 L. Ed. 2d 672 (1986). Since Maready holds that Harbison remains binding on this Court, In re Civil Penalty, 324 N.C. 373, 384, 379 S.E.2d 30, 37 (1989) (holding that “[w]here a panel of the Court of Appeals has decided the same issue, albeit in a different case, a subsequent panel of the •same court is bound by that precedent, unless it has been overturned by a higher court”), and since the State has not advanced any argu*589ment in this case in reliance on Nixon, I believe that I am required to apply Harbison in deciding this case. As a result, I concur in the Court’s opinion.