Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

51 N.C. App. 460

State v. Fennell

Court of Appeals of North Carolina · decided 1981-04-07

Cited by 2 later decisions — most recently January 1984

2 state decisions

Relies on 19 N.C. App. 177 - State v. McKinney

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1981-04-07

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

HEDRICK, Judge.

¶1Although defendant stated in his motion for appropriate relief that it was made pursuant to G.S. §§ 15 A-1414,1415, he did not specify the grounds therefor. It appears from the allegations in his motion and his affidavit filed in support thereof that defendant attempted to allege that his plea of guilty was not knowingly, voluntarily, and understanding^ entered. Defend*463ant thus would appear to have stated grounds under G.S. § 15A-1415(b)(3) and would be entitled to appeal the denial of his motion to withdraw his plea of guilty pursuant to G.S. § 15A-1444(e).

¶2Defendant’s sole exception is to the order denying his motion. A broadside exception to an order by the trial court denying a motion relating to one of the defendant’s protected rights presents for review only the question of whether the facts found and the conclusions made support the order. See State v. McKinney, 19 N.C. App. 177, 198 S.E. 2d 241 (1973). We have carefully reviewed Judge Llewellyn’s order dated 24 April 1980, and find his order to be properly supported by the facts found and the conclusions made.

¶3The order appealed from is

¶4Affirmed.

Judges Webb and Hill concur.
/51/ncapp/460 · .json · Public domain