Opinion
COA22-300
12-20-2022
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. CLYDE JUNIOR MERIS, Defendant
Attorney General Joshua H. Stein, by Assistant Attorney General Kayla D. Britt, for the State. Clyde Junior Meris, pro se.
An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute controlling legal authority.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.
Heard in the Court of Appeals 4 October 2022.
Appeal by Defendant from an order entered 26 October 2021 by Judge William A. Wood in Guilford County Nos. 14 CRS 592676-79, 15 CRS 68137, 16 CRS 24079-80, 16 CRS 24208, 16 CRS 24485-87, 16 CRS 65968, 16 CRS 66102-03, 16 CRS 67176-78, 16 CRS 78413, 16 CRS 69052-57, 16 CRS 69401-04, 16 CRS 69965 Superior Court.
Attorney General Joshua H. Stein, by Assistant Attorney General Kayla D. Britt, for the State.
Clyde Junior Meris, pro se.
INMAN, JUDGE
¶ 1 Defendant Clyde Junior Meris, who filed over thirty duplicative post conviction motions in the trial court, appeals following the entry of a gatekeeping order that prohibits him from filing additional post-conviction motions without prior review by a resident Guilford County Superior Court judge. On appeal, Defendant requests that we set aside the trial court's gatekeeping order, grant the relief requested in his underlying post-conviction motions, and conduct an Anders review of the trial court proceedings. After careful review, we hold Defendant has failed to demonstrate error.
I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
¶ 2 On 16 April 2018, Defendant entered an Alford plea to several charges for larceny, breaking and entering, and motor vehicle theft. The trial court sentenced Defendant to serve two consecutive terms of 128 to 166 months in prison and, with Defendant's consent, ordered that several items seized as evidence be returned to Defendant's wife.
¶ 3 Eight months later, Defendant began filing a serious of duplicative post conviction motions with the trial court pro se. These motions broadly requested: (1) production of a "stenographic transcript" and taped audio recording of his plea hearing; (2) the return to Defendant of certain evidence seized pursuant to a search warrant; and (3) dismissal of the indictments and charges to which Defendant had entered an Alford plea. Defendant filed at least eighteen such motions between December 2018 and July 2020; the trial court denied all of them as meritless or duplicative. Defendant then filed a petition for writ of certiorari with this Court, which was denied.
¶ 4 Defendant filed more than 24 additional motions seeking largely the same relief as his prior motions. The trial court denied each of these motions, resolving any new claims on the merits and rejecting the remainder as duplicative of his prior motions. Six of the trial court's orders expressly warned Defendant that his continued filing of redundant motions could lead to entry of a gatekeeping order.
¶ 5 Defendant pursued additional means of redress outside the trial court. He filed a meritless judicial misconduct claim with the Judicial Standards Commission. He also sought the assistance of North Carolina Prisoner Legal Services, which informed Defendant that its review of his case file found no errors.
¶ 6 On 26 October 2021, following a hearing attended by Defendant, the trial court entered a gatekeeping order requiring that any post-conviction pleadings, referred to in the order as "filings or writings," bearing Defendant's name and filed with the Guilford County Clerk of Superior Court be reviewed by a resident Guilford County Superior Court judge. Under the order's terms, if the reviewing judge believes the pleading has potential merit, the document will be file stamped and placed in the appropriate casefile for resolution. Should the reviewing judge determine the pleading to be "frivolous, redundant, or generally baseless," it will be placed in a "holding file." After 18 months, the gatekeeping order will expire, and a resident Superior Court judge will review all of the held pleadings and determine whether the gatekeeping order should be renewed or modified. Defendant will have the opportunity to be heard in the event the reviewing judge determines that the gatekeeping order should be extended.
¶ 7 At the conclusion of the hearing on the gatekeeping order, Defendant gave oral notice of appeal.
II. ANALYSIS
¶ 8 Defendant, appearing pro se, requests this Court: (1) reverse the gatekeeping order; (2) order the trial court to compel production of a "stenographic transcript" and conduct an evidentiary hearing on the same; and (3) conduct an Anders review. The State, by motion and briefing, argues that Defendant's appeal should be dismissed or, in the alternative, that the gatekeeping order be affirmed.
¶ 9 Assuming arguendo that Defendant has no appeal of right from the gatekeeping order, we grant certiorari review of Defendant's appeal under N.C. R. App. P. 21 (2022). State v. SanMiguel, 74 N.C.App. 276, 277-78, 328 S.E.2d 326, 328 (1985). However, we limit our review to the propriety of the gatekeeping order because: (1) that is the only order included in the record on appeal; and (2) this Court previously denied certiorari review of the trial court's orders denying Defendant's requests for a "stenographic transcript" and related relief.
¶ 10 Defendant's arguments involving the gatekeeping order-centered on lack of notice and counsel-do not demonstrate error. Defendant was explicitly warned on multiple occasions that his continued filing of frivolous post-conviction motions would result in entry of a gatekeeping order and, though Defendant claims he was given inadequate notice of the hearing, the transcript reveals that he was provided with notice through receipt of the proposed gatekeeping order prior to the hearing. Defendant had no constitutional right to counsel at the hearing. See Pennsylvania v. Finley, 481 U.S. 551, 555, 95 L.Ed.2d 539, 545 (1987) ("We have never held that prisoners have a constitutional right to counsel when mounting collateral attacks upon their convictions, and we decline to hold so today." (citation omitted)).
¶ 11 The trial court's gatekeeping order is supported by 81 findings of fact, which are unchallenged on appeal and thus binding on this Court. State v. Williams, 215 N.C.App. 1, 5, 714 S.E.2d 835, 838 (2011). The trial court found that Defendant repeatedly filed duplicative and frivolous post-conviction motions burdening the trial court's limited resources, and that Defendant continued this pattern of behavior notwithstanding the trial court's repeated warnings that such conduct would lead to entry of a gatekeeping order. The trial court entered the gatekeeping order only as "an action of last resort."
¶ 12 Entry of a gatekeeping order is appropriate under these circumstances. See State v. Blake, 275 N.C.App. 669, 714, 853 S.E.2d 838, 848 (2020) ("Gatekeeper orders are normally entered only where a defendant has previously asserted numerous frivolous claims.").
¶ 13 The order is appropriately tailored to the circumstances. It is limited to 18 months and applies only to Guilford County, where Defendant's duplicative and meritless motions were filed. The order may be renewed only after Defendant has had an opportunity to be heard. The scope of the order, applying to all post-conviction filings or writings bearing Defendant's name, is appropriate given that Defendant's voluminous prior filings were inconsistent in their file numbering, captioning, and styling. The order also allows the filing of any new post-conviction motions found by a reviewing resident Superior Court judge to have "potential merit." Defendant has failed to demonstrate any error in the gatekeeping order.
III. CONCLUSION
¶ 14 For the foregoing reasons, we hold that Defendant has failed to demonstrate error in the trial court's entry of the gatekeeping order.
AFFIRMED.
Judges TYSON and COLLINS concur.
Report per Rule 30(e).