Profile cover photo
Profile photo
Lynn Norton-Ramirez
57 followers -
Experienced criminal defense lawyer leaves the big city of Los Angeles for the beautiful state of North Carolina.
Experienced criminal defense lawyer leaves the big city of Los Angeles for the beautiful state of North Carolina.

57 followers
About
Posts

FIREARM RESTORATION AFTER INVOLUNTARY COMMITMENT, LEGAL BLOG
RESTORATION OF FIREARM RIGHTS AFTER INVOLUNTARY COMMITMENT: THE STATE COURT HEARING (Part 4)
In order to actually get your firearm rights restored, the involuntary commitment must have occurred in a state which has a law outlining the path to restoration. And that state law must conform to federal requirements.1

In a state restoration hearing, the judge must consider the following factors:
(1) the circumstances regarding the involuntary commitment,
(2) the petitioner’s record and
(3) the petitioner’s reputation in the community of residence.

The court must find that the petitioner “will not be likely to act in a manner dangerous to public safety,” and that “the granting of the relief would not be contrary to the public interest,” in order to restore firearm rights.

The law in North Carolina requires that the court consider:
(1) the petitioner’s mental health and criminal history records,
(2) the petitioner’s reputation, developed at a minimum through character witness statements, testimony, or other character evidence, and
(3) any changes in the petitioner’s condition or circumstances since the original determination or finding relevant to the relief sought i.e. the involuntary commitment.

If the state where the involuntary commitment occurred does not have a law which includes the federally mandated factors, that court’s findings will be subject to a federal bar. Additionally, since the NICS Improvements Amendment Act (NIAA) was passed in 2008, if your state’s restoration statute predates 2008, it may be inadequate. If the federally required factors and findings are not part of the state’s restoration statute, it would be fruitless to make this motion until the state’s law is changed.

__________
1. 18 U.S.C. § 925(c)



PUBLISHED BY
Lynn Norton-Ramirez
View all posts by Lynn Norton-Ramirez

Add a comment...

FIREARM RESTORATION AFTER INVOLUNTARY COMMITMENT, LEGAL BLOG
RESTORATION OF FIREARM RIGHTS AFTER INVOLUNTARY COMMITMENT: THE STATE COURT HEARING (Part 4)
In order to actually get your firearm rights restored, the involuntary commitment must have occurred in a state which has a law outlining the path to restoration. And that state law must conform to federal requirements.1

In a state restoration hearing, the judge must consider the following factors:
(1) the circumstances regarding the involuntary commitment,
(2) the petitioner’s record and
(3) the petitioner’s reputation in the community of residence.

The court must find that the petitioner “will not be likely to act in a manner dangerous to public safety,” and that “the granting of the relief would not be contrary to the public interest,” in order to restore firearm rights.

The law in North Carolina requires that the court consider:
(1) the petitioner’s mental health and criminal history records,
(2) the petitioner’s reputation, developed at a minimum through character witness statements, testimony, or other character evidence, and
(3) any changes in the petitioner’s condition or circumstances since the original determination or finding relevant to the relief sought i.e. the involuntary commitment.

If the state where the involuntary commitment occurred does not have a law which includes the federally mandated factors, that court’s findings will be subject to a federal bar. Additionally, since the NICS Improvements Amendment Act (NIAA) was passed in 2008, if your state’s restoration statute predates 2008, it may be inadequate. If the federally required factors and findings are not part of the state’s restoration statute, it would be fruitless to make this motion until the state’s law is changed.

__________
1. 18 U.S.C. § 925(c)


PUBLISHED BY
Lynn Norton-Ramirez
View all posts by Lynn Norton-Ramirez

Add a comment...

RESTORATION OF FIREARM RIGHTS AFTER INVOLUNTARY COMMITMENT PART 3: THE FEDERAL PROHIBITION
A. Relevant Laws:
-Under The Gun Control Act of 1968, 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(4), persons who were adjudicated as a “mental defective” or committed involuntarily to a mental institution were prohibited from receiving or possessing a firearm.
-Under the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1993, federal firearms licensees were required to conduct a criminal background check or NICS (National Instant Criminal Background Check System) before transferring a firearm to a non-licensee. Part of this check was the required representation that the transfer to the non-licensee would not violate federal, state or local law. A written statement issued by the chief law enforcement officer had to confirm that the transferee had not been adjudicated as a mental defective or been committed to a mental institution. Consequently, any person who had been adjudicated a mental defective or been committed to a mental institution (FN1) was prohibited for life from possessing a firearm.
-In 2008, the NICS Improvement Amendments Act of 2007 (NIAA) was signed into law thereby providing a mechanism wherein a person who had been involuntarily committed could have firearm rights restored.

B.Restoration of Firearm Rights per NIAA
There are two paths to restoration of firearm rights:
1) Federal: 18 U.S.C. 925 (c) wherein the application is made to the United States Attorney General. The petitioner must show that the circumstances regarding the mental disability, and the applicant’s record and reputation, are such that the applicant will not be likely to act in a manner dangerous to public safety and that the granting of the relief would not be contrary to the public interest. This path to relief is currently illusory as it has not been funded and consequently no applications are being reviewed. (Jeffries v. Sessions at p. 17 (E.D. Pa. 2017)
2) State: North Carolina General Statute § 14-409.42 meets the criteria specified in NIAA (FN2) and courts can restore firearm purchasing rights to a person who had them previously removed because of a mental health adjudication or involuntary commitment. However, North Carolina’s statutory scheme has not been certified by the ATF. (see State Progress in Record Reporting for Firearm-Related Background Checks: by Becki Goggins, SEARCH and Anne Gallegos, National Center for State Courts February 2016 fn.8)

C. Conclusion
In the states who have enacted restoration relief laws, restoration of rights under state law will remove the bar to firearm possession. North Carolina currently has a legally sufficient program so a restoration of rights in state courts (FN3) will apply in both the state and federal jurisdictions. When firearm restoration relief is granted under a federal or state program which meets the requirements of the NIAA, or when certain automatic relief conditions are met, the mental health disability is “deemed not to have occurred” for purposes of the federal firearm prohibition.
Persons in states with no statutorily sufficient laws will not have their firearm restoration rights restored unless their legislature or courts (FN3) provide a remedy.
_____________________
FOOTNOTES
(1)“Adjudicated as a mental defective” means: a determination by a court, board, commission, or other lawful authority that a person, as a result of marked subnormal intelligence, or mental illness, incompetency, condition, or disease is a danger to himself or to others and lacks the mental capacity to contract or manage his own affairs. This term shall include a finding of insanity by a court in a criminal case or those persons found incompetent to stand trial or found not guilty by reason of lack of mental responsibility pursuant to articles 50a and 72b of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. 850a, 876b.
“Committed to a mental institution” refers to the formal commitment of a person to a mental institution by a court, board, commission, or other lawful authority. The term includes a commitment to a mental institution involuntarily and a commitment for mental defectiveness or mental illness. It also includes commitments for other reasons, such as for drug use. The term does not include a person in a mental institution for observation or a voluntary admission to a mental institution.
(2) In order to establish a relief from disabilities program, a state must comply with the NIAA requirements, as follows: 1. Pass state law or administrative order 2. Complete an application 3. Indicate the lawful authority that will consider the petition 4. Abide by due process 5. Create a proper record of the proceeding 6. Create proper findings 7. Allow for de novo judicial review of denial 8. Update state and federal records once made aware that the disqualifier no longer applies 9. Establish a written procedure to address updating requirements (recommended)
(3) There is currently a split in opinion between the sympathetic 6th Circuit and the hostile 3rd Circuit.

Add a comment...

RESTORATION OF FIREARM RIGHTS AFTER INVOLUNTARY COMMITMENT PART 3: THE FEDERAL PROHIBITION
A. Relevant Laws:
-Under The Gun Control Act of 1968, 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(4), persons who were adjudicated as a “mental defective” or committed involuntarily to a mental institution were prohibited from receiving or possessing a firearm.
-Under the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1993, federal firearms licensees were required to conduct a criminal background check or NICS (National Instant Criminal Background Check System) before transferring a firearm to a non-licensee. Part of this check was the required representation that the transfer to the non-licensee would not violate federal, state or local law. A written statement issued by the chief law enforcement officer had to confirm that the transferee had not been adjudicated as a mental defective or been committed to a mental institution. Consequently, any person who had been adjudicated a mental defective or been committed to a mental institution (FN1) was prohibited for life from possessing a firearm.
-In 2008, the NICS Improvement Amendments Act of 2007 (NIAA) was signed into law thereby providing a mechanism wherein a person who had been involuntarily committed could have firearm rights restored.

B.Restoration of Firearm Rights per NIAA
There are two paths to restoration of firearm rights:
1) Federal: 18 U.S.C. 925 (c) wherein the application is made to the United States Attorney General. The petitioner must show that the circumstances regarding the mental disability, and the applicant’s record and reputation, are such that the applicant will not be likely to act in a manner dangerous to public safety and that the granting of the relief would not be contrary to the public interest. This path to relief is currently illusory as it has not been funded and consequently no applications are being reviewed. (Jeffries v. Sessions at p. 17 (E.D. Pa. 2017)
2) State: North Carolina General Statute § 14-409.42 meets the criteria specified in NIAA (FN2) and courts can restore firearm purchasing rights to a person who had them previously removed because of a mental health adjudication or involuntary commitment. However, North Carolina’s statutory scheme has not been certified by the ATF. (see State Progress in Record Reporting for Firearm-Related Background Checks: by Becki Goggins, SEARCH and Anne Gallegos, National Center for State Courts February 2016 fn.8)

C. Conclusion
In the states who have enacted restoration relief laws, restoration of rights under state law will remove the bar to firearm possession. North Carolina currently has a legally sufficient program so a restoration of rights in state courts (FN3) will apply in both the state and federal jurisdictions. When firearm restoration relief is granted under a federal or state program which meets the requirements of the NIAA, or when certain automatic relief conditions are met, the mental health disability is “deemed not to have occurred” for purposes of the federal firearm prohibition.
Persons in states with no statutorily sufficient laws will not have their firearm restoration rights restored unless their legislature or courts (FN3) provide a remedy.
_____________________
FOOTNOTES
(1)“Adjudicated as a mental defective” means: a determination by a court, board, commission, or other lawful authority that a person, as a result of marked subnormal intelligence, or mental illness, incompetency, condition, or disease is a danger to himself or to others and lacks the mental capacity to contract or manage his own affairs. This term shall include a finding of insanity by a court in a criminal case or those persons found incompetent to stand trial or found not guilty by reason of lack of mental responsibility pursuant to articles 50a and 72b of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. 850a, 876b.
“Committed to a mental institution” refers to the formal commitment of a person to a mental institution by a court, board, commission, or other lawful authority. The term includes a commitment to a mental institution involuntarily and a commitment for mental defectiveness or mental illness. It also includes commitments for other reasons, such as for drug use. The term does not include a person in a mental institution for observation or a voluntary admission to a mental institution.
(2) In order to establish a relief from disabilities program, a state must comply with the NIAA requirements, as follows: 1. Pass state law or administrative order 2. Complete an application 3. Indicate the lawful authority that will consider the petition 4. Abide by due process 5. Create a proper record of the proceeding 6. Create proper findings 7. Allow for de novo judicial review of denial 8. Update state and federal records once made aware that the disqualifier no longer applies 9. Establish a written procedure to address updating requirements (recommended)
(3) There is currently a split in opinion between the sympathetic 6th Circuit and the hostile 3rd Circuit.

Add a comment...

THE ENIGMATIC PJC: Part I WHAT IS IT?

The Prayer for Judgment Continued (PJC) is a strange sentencing concept. It is an acceptance of responsibility but not a conviction. It is a resolution of a criminal or traffic charge but not a dismissal. It isn’t appealable and uncertainty exists as to whether PJC charges can be expunged.
The PJC is a sentencing option. If a person admits responsibility for a crime or gets convicted by plea or trial, a judge has three options for sentencing:
1) Impose an immediate sentence such as a fine and or incarceration,
2) impose a sentence but suspend it or
3) impose a Prayer for Judgment Continued. Whether the PJC acts as a final resolution depends on the words and intent of the judge.
a) A PJC may signify the final resolution where the court intends that judgment will be continued indefinitely and no additional proceedings will occur. An example is when upon a conviction of multiple charges, a sentence is imposed on some charges and a PJC is imposed on others. Here, no further proceedings are contemplated.
The PJC is viewed as a way for a judge to exercise discretion and reduce the impact of a criminal proceeding. By withholding judgment in an appropriate case, a judge can minimize the effects and consequences of the crime or offense.
In traffic cases, the PJC resolution saves the defendant from incurring license and insurance points. A PJC may be used once every three years per insurance policy, not per driver.
and twice every 5 years for DMV purposes.
b) A PJC may be continued for a specified period of time and if during that period of time, the defendant fails to comply with the conditions of the PJC, the prosecutor will “pray for judgment” and ask the judge to impose judgment. Until the expiration of the duration of the specified period of time, the PJC can still revert to a conviction.
c) A PJC may act as a placeholder when the sentencing must be delayed such as when defendant is tried in absentia or when the judge needs additional information before imposing sentence.

The next blog post is part 2 of this series: Can a PJC be expunged?

Author: Lynn Norton-Ramirez
Add a comment...

THE ENIGMATIC PJC: Part I WHAT IS IT?

The Prayer for Judgment Continued (PJC) is a strange sentencing concept. It is an acceptance of responsibility but not a conviction. It is a resolution of a criminal or traffic charge but not a dismissal. It isn’t appealable and uncertainty exists as to whether PJC charges can be expunged.
The PJC is a sentencing option. If a person admits responsibility for a crime or gets convicted by plea or trial, a judge has three options for sentencing:
1) Impose an immediate sentence such as a fine and or incarceration,
2) impose a sentence but suspend it or
3) impose a Prayer for Judgment Continued. Whether the PJC acts as a final resolution depends on the words and intent of the judge.
a) A PJC may signify the final resolution where the court intends that judgment will be continued indefinitely and no additional proceedings will occur. An example is when upon a conviction of multiple charges, a sentence is imposed on some charges and a PJC is imposed on others. Here, no further proceedings are contemplated.
The PJC is viewed as a way for a judge to exercise discretion and reduce the impact of a criminal proceeding. By withholding judgment in an appropriate case, a judge can minimize the effects and consequences of the crime or offense.
In traffic cases, the PJC resolution saves the defendant from incurring license and insurance points. A PJC may be used once every three years per insurance policy, not per driver.
and twice every 5 years for DMV purposes.
b) A PJC may be continued for a specified period of time and if during that period of time, the defendant fails to comply with the conditions of the PJC, the prosecutor will “pray for judgment” and ask the judge to impose judgment. Until the expiration of the duration of the specified period of time, the PJC can still revert to a conviction.
c) A PJC may act as a placeholder when the sentencing must be delayed such as when defendant is tried in absentia or when the judge needs additional information before imposing sentence.

The next blog post is part 2 of this series: Can a PJC be expunged?

Author: Lynn Norton-Ramirez
Add a comment...

Homicide and Manslaughter Charges Now Filed for Hazing Deaths
Injuries and death caused by hazing are no longer excused or treated with a slap on the wrist. Prosecutors are bypassing misdemeanor hazing charges for the much more serious murder and manslaughter charges when death results from a hazing ritual.
“Go back a generation or two, and hazing was accepted conduct, part of the fraternity experience, part of the football experience,” said David LaBahn, president of the Association of Prosecuting Attorneys. Now it’s no longer ‘boys will be boys’ and ‘why is the prosecutor getting involved in this?’ I think there is much more acceptance out there that this is unlawful behavior.”
Three cases: LSU, Penn State and Baruch College illustrate this new reality:
At LSU: On September 13, 2017, at the Phi Delta Theta house, an 18-year-old pledge died of acute ethanol intoxication with aspiration after playing a drinking game. His blood alcohol content was .496 percent, more than six times the legal limit. He and other pledges had received text messages ordering them to report for “Bible study at the chapter house. “Bible study,” was question-and-answer game during which pledges were forced to drink “a pull” from a bottle of alcohol if they answered questions incorrectly. The 19-year-old fraternity member who was in charge of the hazing event and who aggressively insisted that the pledge drink was charged with negligent homicide and misdemeanor hazing. Nine other students are currently facing hazing misdemeanors and expulsion.
At Penn State: On February 2, 2017 at the Beta Theta Pi house, pledges were forced to line up for a “gauntlet” of drinking stations. First, they passed a vodka bottle down the line. Each pledge was ordered to drink before moving to the next station. The pledges were then ordered to “shotgun” a beer, and made to drink from a wine bag. Finally, the were obligated to finish with beer pong. In a group message sent shortly before midnight, one of the fraternity members texted that an 18-year-old pledge had fallen 15 feet down a flight of stairs and would need help.” Video from the fraternity showed the pledge stumbling and hitting his head on a railing, on the stone floor and on a furniture. A few times, a fraternity brother walked into the lobby, saw the pledge lying on the couch and failed to render aid. Instead he was “back-packed.” A backpack stuffed with textbooks was placed on his back to weigh him down so that he would not roll over and choke on his vomit. While he drifted in and out of consciousness, fraternity brothers splashed water on his face in an effort to revive him. Twelve hours after the gauntlet game commenced, 911 was alerted but by then he had died. Eighteen Penn State students were charged: eight with involuntary manslaughter and ten with hazing misdemeanors and furnishing alcohol to minors.
At Baruch College: On December 9, 2013, a Pi Delta Psi pledge participated in a ritual called the “Glass Ceiling.” He was blindfolded and made to wear a backpack weighted with sand while crossing a frozen field as members of the fraternity tackled him. During at least one tackle, he was lifted up and dropped on the ground in a move known as “spearing.” He complained his head hurt but continued participating and was eventually knocked unconscious. Fraternity members carried him inside and contacted a national fraternity official who told them to hide fraternity items. Some members left the house, while others changed his clothes and conducted internet searches to diagnose his symptoms. When the pledge experienced trouble breathing, he was driven to the hospital where he died of severe head trauma. Initially, 37 people were charged in connection with his death and faced assault and hindering apprehension charges. Five fraternity members were charged with third-degree murder which did not require a specific intent to kill. Eventually, four of the men who had been charged with murder pleaded guilty to reduced charges of voluntary manslaughter and hindering apprehension.

• Author: Lynn Norton-Ramirez

Add a comment...

Homicide and Manslaughter Charges Now Filed for Hazing Deaths
Injuries and death caused by hazing are no longer excused or treated with a slap on the wrist. Prosecutors are bypassing misdemeanor hazing charges for the much more serious murder and manslaughter charges when death results from a hazing ritual.
“Go back a generation or two, and hazing was accepted conduct, part of the fraternity experience, part of the football experience,” said David LaBahn, president of the Association of Prosecuting Attorneys. Now it’s no longer ‘boys will be boys’ and ‘why is the prosecutor getting involved in this?’ I think there is much more acceptance out there that this is unlawful behavior.”
Three cases: LSU, Penn State and Baruch College illustrate this new reality:
At LSU: On September 13, 2017, at the Phi Delta Theta house, an 18-year-old pledge died of acute ethanol intoxication with aspiration after playing a drinking game. His blood alcohol content was .496 percent, more than six times the legal limit. He and other pledges had received text messages ordering them to report for “Bible study at the chapter house. “Bible study,” was question-and-answer game during which pledges were forced to drink “a pull” from a bottle of alcohol if they answered questions incorrectly. The 19-year-old fraternity member who was in charge of the hazing event and who aggressively insisted that the pledge drink was charged with negligent homicide and misdemeanor hazing. Nine other students are currently facing hazing misdemeanors and expulsion.
At Penn State: On February 2, 2017 at the Beta Theta Pi house, pledges were forced to line up for a “gauntlet” of drinking stations. First, they passed a vodka bottle down the line. Each pledge was ordered to drink before moving to the next station. The pledges were then ordered to “shotgun” a beer, and made to drink from a wine bag. Finally, the were obligated to finish with beer pong. In a group message sent shortly before midnight, one of the fraternity members texted that an 18-year-old pledge had fallen 15 feet down a flight of stairs and would need help.” Video from the fraternity showed the pledge stumbling and hitting his head on a railing, on the stone floor and on a furniture. A few times, a fraternity brother walked into the lobby, saw the pledge lying on the couch and failed to render aid. Instead he was “back-packed.” A backpack stuffed with textbooks was placed on his back to weigh him down so that he would not roll over and choke on his vomit. While he drifted in and out of consciousness, fraternity brothers splashed water on his face in an effort to revive him. Twelve hours after the gauntlet game commenced, 911 was alerted but by then he had died. Eighteen Penn State students were charged: eight with involuntary manslaughter and ten with hazing misdemeanors and furnishing alcohol to minors.
At Baruch College: On December 9, 2013, a Pi Delta Psi pledge participated in a ritual called the “Glass Ceiling.” He was blindfolded and made to wear a backpack weighted with sand while crossing a frozen field as members of the fraternity tackled him. During at least one tackle, he was lifted up and dropped on the ground in a move known as “spearing.” He complained his head hurt but continued participating and was eventually knocked unconscious. Fraternity members carried him inside and contacted a national fraternity official who told them to hide fraternity items. Some members left the house, while others changed his clothes and conducted internet searches to diagnose his symptoms. When the pledge experienced trouble breathing, he was driven to the hospital where he died of severe head trauma. Initially, 37 people were charged in connection with his death and faced assault and hindering apprehension charges. Five fraternity members were charged with third-degree murder which did not require a specific intent to kill. Eventually, four of the men who had been charged with murder pleaded guilty to reduced charges of voluntary manslaughter and hindering apprehension.

• Author: Lynn Norton-Ramirez
Add a comment...

REVENGE PORN LAW- TAKE 2

In an effort to keep pace with the posting of sexual or private images, videos and live stream on social media, the North Carolina Revenge Porn statute, G.S. 14‑190.5A, has been significantly modified. The Revenge Porn law is the mechanism by which public disclosure of intimate images is criminally punished. Previously the law required that a “personal relationship” exist between the defendant and the subject of the image but no longer. All that is required is the publication of intimate content intended for humiliation, coercion, intimidation or financial loss. Violation of the statute is a felony for adults and repeat offender minors and a misdemeanor for those under 18. The crime is complete if the defendant:
(1) posts an image, video or live stream,
(2) of “naked human parts” (genitals, pubic area, anus, woman’s nipple) or sexual, excretory or lewd exhibitionistic activity,
(3) of a person who is identifiable either in the image or by accompanying information,
(4) without that person’s consent or with an expectation that the image would remain private and
(5) disclosure is intended to harass, intimidate, embarrass or cause financial
loss to the depicted person.
Under this modification, the defendant does not even have to know the victim and the victim doesn’t have to be aware of the taking of the image(s). Photographing a person with a telephoto lens when they were unclothed or engaging in a sexual act would qualify if performed with the required intent.
I can foresee First Amendment challenges to some of the wording used: “normal or perverted” and “clad in revealing or bizarre costume.” Additionally, the legislature expressly mentioned that the scenario wherein an identifiable person’s head was superimposed onto another body was not within the scope of this law but would be “studied” and may be the the subject of the next modification.
Add a comment...

IF THE POLICE HAVE A REASONABLE BASIS FOR A TRAFFIC STOP, IT DOESN’T MATTER IF YOU NEVER BROKE THE LAW
If you believed that the police cannot pull your car over unless you have violated the law, you would be wrong. The constitutional standard for a vehicle stop is “reasonable suspicion”—that is, “a particularized and objective basis for suspecting the particular person stopped” has violated the law. “Reasonable” does not mean correct. The Fourth Amendment allows for error. The officer can be wrong but as long as the mistake is objectively reasonable, the stop will be upheld as constitutionally valid.
Additionally, if, as a result of the stop, the police find themselves in a position where they can make additional observations such as smelling alcohol on your breath, seeing contraband etc., then an arrest based upon those observations will be constitutionally sound. However, the police may not prolong the stop to develop probable cause, observation of another crime must be apparent within a reasonable period of time.
So, as long as the officer can articulate a reasonable basis for an erroneous belief that a driver has violated the law, an actual violation isn’t necessary. A reasonable, though mistaken, belief that the law has been violated will not invalidate a stop.
What does that mean to you? Obviously, if you have been drinking, you can’t do anything about the smell of alcohol on your breath or if you have been smoking, the lingering aroma of marijuana in the air will be apparent long after the smoking is over. However, contraband should never be in plain view in the console, the drink holder or on the seat. Don’t make your arrest any easier than it has to be. Nothing should ever be in plan view and never voluntarily consent to a search.

Authorities:
North Carolina v. Johnson, North Carolina Supreme Court, 8/18/2017
Heien v. North Carolina 574 U. S. __ (2014)
State v. Bullock, 785 S.E. 2d 746 (NC App 2016)

Add a comment...
Wait while more posts are being loaded