State v Jackson
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An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute controlling legal authority.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 Appellate Procedure. NO. COA11-344 NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS Filed: 6 December 2011 STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. Watauga County Nos. 09 CR 50318 and 50320 JERRELL LAMAR JACKSON, SURETY: BRAXTON D. EGGERS, Agent for International Fidelity Insurance Company. JUDGMENT CREDITOR: Watauga County Board of Education. Appeal by the surety from order entered 25 January 2011 by Judge R. Gregory Horne in Watauga County District Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 29 September 2011. Eggers, Eggers, Eggers & Eggers, PLLC, by Stacy C. Eggers, IV, for surety-appellant. Miller & Johnson, PLLC, by Nathan A. Miller, for judgment creditor-appellee. THIGPEN, Judge. The Judicial senior resident District issued superior an court judge administrative of order the 24th regarding conditions of pretrial release applicable to counties within the -2senior resident superior court judge s district. The order was issued without consulting with the chief district court judge or other district court judges within the district. A district court judge within the judicial district did not follow the administrative order. judge erred conclude by that contravention not since of We must decide whether the district court following the N.C. the administrative administrative Gen. Stat. § order order. was 15A-535(a) issued (2009), We in the district court judge did not err. The relevant facts and issues on appeal in this case are indistinguishable from its companion case, State v. Harrison, __ N.C. App. __, __ S.E.2d __ (2011). In Harrison, this Court concluded that because the senior resident superior court judge did not enter the administrative order in compliance with N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-535(a), the district court did not err by denying the Surety s motion to set aside the forfeiture. Based on this Court s holding in Harrison, we conclude the district court in this case did not err by denying the Surety s motion to set aside the forfeiture. district court. AFFIRMED. Judges GEER and STROUD concur. We affirm the order of the -3Report 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.
