From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

State v. Llamas-Hernandez

Supreme Court of North Carolina
Feb 6, 2009
363 N.C. 8 (N.C. 2009)
Download
PDF
Check
Treatment

Summary

adopting dissent from Court of Appeals, 189 N.C.App. 640, 654–55, 659 S.E.2d 79, 88

Summary of this case from State v. Satterthwaite
See 8 Summaries

Opinion

673 S.E.2d 658 (N.C. 2009) 363 N.C. 8 STATE of North Carolina v. Mario LLAMAS-HERNANDEZ. No. 220A08. Supreme Court of North Carolina. February 6, 2009

         Heard in the Supreme Court 18 November 2008.

         Appeal pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 7A-30(2) from the decision of a divided panel of the Court of Appeals, 189 N.C.App. 640, 659 S.E.2d 79 (2008), finding no error in a judgment entered 14 September 2006 by Judge W. Robert Bell in Superior Court, Mecklenburg County.

          Roy Cooper, Attorney General, by LaToya B. Powell, Assistant Attorney General, for the State.

          Kevin P. Tully, Public Defender, by Julie Ramseur Lewis, Assistant Public Defender, for defendant-appellant.

          PER CURIAM.

         For the reasons stated in the dissenting opinion, the decision of the Court of Appeals is reversed.

         REVERSED.

Summaries of

State v. Llamas-Hernandez

Supreme Court of North Carolina
Feb 6, 2009
363 N.C. 8 (N.C. 2009)

adopting dissent from Court of Appeals, 189 N.C.App. 640, 654–55, 659 S.E.2d 79, 88

Summary of this case from State v. Satterthwaite

adopting the dissent of Judge Steelman in 189 N.C. App. 640, 659 S.E.2d 79

Summary of this case from State v. Stikeleather

adopting J. Steelman's dissent

Summary of this case from State v. Jackson

reversing for reasons stated in the dissenting opinion of our Court, 189 N.C. App. 640, 652-54, 659 S.E.2d 79, 86-88

Summary of this case from State v. Woodard

reversing for reasons asserted in the dissenting opinion of the appellate court, 189 N.C. App. 640, 654, 659 S.E.2d 79, 88

Summary of this case from State v. Brunson

In State v. Llamas–Hernandez, 363 N.C. 8, 673 S.E.2d 658 (2009) (per curiam), this Court adopted the dissenting opinion from the Court of Appeals concluding that chemical testing was required to identify a substance as powder cocaine.

Summary of this case from State v. Brewington

noting that where the error had no effect on the sentence received, "it would be unnecessary to resentence defendant"

Summary of this case from State v. Gillespie

In Llamas-Hernandez, 189 N.C. App. 640, 659 S.E.2d 79 (2008), defendant challenged the admission of lay opinion testimony that a particular substance was powder cocaine.

Summary of this case from State v. Galindo
Case details for

State v. Llamas-Hernandez

Case Details

Full title:STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. MARIO LLAMAS-HERNANDEZ

Court:Supreme Court of North Carolina

Date published: Feb 6, 2009

Citations

363 N.C. 8 (N.C. 2009)
363 N.C. 8

Citing Cases

State v. Ward

In State v. Llamas-Hernandez a jury found the defendant guilty of trafficking in cocaine after hearing lay…

State v. Nabors

Furthermore, in light of State v. Ward, the continued viability of the State v. Freeman holding is in doubt.…

37 Citing Cases