State v. Thompson
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute controlling legal authority.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 A p p e l l a t e P r o c e d u r e . NO. COA13-438 NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS Filed: 15 October 2013 STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. Bladen County No. 11 CRS 50176 MILLIE ANN THOMPSON, Defendant. On writ of certiorari to review judgment entered 11 December 2012 by Judge Paul L. Jones in Bladen County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 7 October 2013. Attorney General Roy Cooper, by Assistant Attorney General Peggy S. Vincent, for the State. Edward Eldred, Attorney at Law, PLLC, by Edward Eldred, for defendant appellant. BRYANT, Judge. Defendant seeks review of her conviction worthless check by petition for writ of certiorari. petition was occasioned by defendant s improper for felony Defendant s notice of appeal, as the notice of appeal lacked proof of service, did not -2designate contain the judgment which signature. counsel s from See the appeal N.C.R. was App. taken, P. 4 or (2011). Since defendant s intent to appeal the judgment can be fairly inferred from the notice, we allow defendant s petition pursuant to N.C.R. App. P. 21(a)(1) (2011) and proceed to the merits of her appeal. Defendant first challenges the trial court s jurisdiction on the ground that the indictment failed to allege an essential element of felony worthless check under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14107(a), (d) defendant (2011). passed a Although check the knowing indictment that she charged did not that have sufficient funds in the bank to cover it, our Supreme Court has long held that a worthless check indictment must also allege the defendant lacked sufficient satisfy the check. credit at the issuing bank to State v. Edwards, 190 N.C. 322, 325, 130 S.E. 10, 11 (1925) (construing an earlier but similar version of the worthless check statute); accord State v. Banks, 206 N.C. 479, 480, 174 S.E. 306, 307 (1934). current version addressed in the of the case worthless law, the Unable to distinguish the check State statute concedes from those error. See N.C.G.S. § 14-107(a) (requiring that the maker or drawer of [the check] has not sufficient funds on deposit in or credit -3with the bank or depository with which to pay the check or draft upon presentation ) (emphasis added). We agree with the parties that [t]he indictment is fatally defective in that, while charging insufficient funds on deposit, it makes no reference whatever to a want of credits . . . . Edwards, 190 N.C. at 325, 130 S.E. at 11 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). Therefore, the judgment before us is void and must be vacated. See State v. Wagner, 356 N.C. 599, 601, 572 S.E.2d 777, 779 (2002). Having determined that the trial court lacked jurisdiction in this cause, we do not address defendant s remaining argument. Vacated. Judges HUNTER, Robert C., and McCULLOUGH concur. Report per Rule 30(e).
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
