State v. Singleton

The North Carolina Court of Appeals recently issued an unpublished opinion in *State v. Singleton*, COA24-1051, on July 1, 2026. This decision serves as a timely reminder of the unique status and limited utility of unpublished opinions within North Carolina's appellate jurisprudence. Under Rule 30(e)(3) of the North Carolina Rules of Appellate Procedure, such opinions do not constitute controlling legal authority and their citation is generally disfavored. While they may be cited under specific, narrow exceptions—such as for establishing claim preclusion, issue preclusion, or the law of the case—practitioners must adhere to strict procedural requirements and acknowledge their non-precedential nature. This article explores the implications of this rule for attorneys navigating the state's appellate landscape.

On July 1, 2026, the North Carolina Court of Appeals filed its opinion in *State v. Singleton*, designated as COA24-1051. While the specifics of this particular case remain outside the realm of controlling legal precedent, its issuance highlights a critical aspect of North Carolina's appellate system: the role and treatment of unpublished opinions. Unlike published decisions, which serve as binding authority and shape the development of state law, unpublished opinions occupy a distinct and often misunderstood position, carrying significant implications for legal practitioners.

This article delves into the legal framework governing unpublished opinions in North Carolina, using *State v. Singleton*, COA24-1051, as a contemporary example of such a judicial pronouncement. It will examine the statutory basis for their existence, the limitations on their citation, and the practical considerations attorneys must weigh when encountering or contemplating the use of these non-precedential rulings. Understanding these nuances is essential for effective appellate advocacy and for maintaining the integrity of legal arguments within the state's courts.

The treatment of unpublished opinions in North Carolina is primarily governed by Rule 30(e) of the North Carolina Rules of Appellate Procedure. This rule was first adopted in 1975, with subsequent amendments refining its provisions. The rationale behind allowing the issuance of unpublished opinions is rooted in judicial efficiency and resource management. Specifically, Rule 30(e)(1) states that the Court of Appeals is not required to publish an opinion in every decided case, particularly when the panel determines that the appeal "involves no new legal principles and that an opinion, if published, would have no value as a precedent."

Historically, the rule regarding citation of unpublished opinions was much stricter, with an earlier version of Rule 30(e)(3) explicitly stating that such decisions were authority "only in the case in which such decision is rendered and should not be cited in any other case in any court for any purpose." However, the rule has evolved, now permitting limited citation under specific circumstances. This shift reflects a recognition that while these opinions do not establish broad legal principles, they may still hold relevance in particular contexts, such as demonstrating the application of existing law to unique factual scenarios or for purposes of preclusion. The current framework seeks to balance the need for judicial economy with the potential utility of these decisions for practitioners.

Under the current iteration of Rule 30(e)(3) of the North Carolina Rules of Appellate Procedure, an unpublished decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals "does not constitute controlling legal authority." Consequently, the citation of unpublished opinions in briefs, memoranda, and oral arguments in both trial and appellate divisions is "disfavored." This clear directive underscores their non-precedential nature, meaning they cannot be relied upon to establish new legal principles or to compel a particular outcome in unrelated cases. This is a critical distinction for practitioners, as relying on an unpublished opinion as if it were binding precedent can undermine the credibility of an argument.

Despite the general disfavor, Rule 30(e)(3) carves out specific exceptions where citation is permitted: "for the purpose of establishing claim preclusion, issue preclusion, or the law of the case." These exceptions acknowledge that an unpublished opinion, though not precedential, may still be relevant to the parties involved in the original litigation or subsequent related proceedings. Furthermore, if a party genuinely believes that an unpublished opinion possesses "precedential value to a material issue in the case and that there is no published opinion that would serve as well," they may cite it, provided they serve a copy of the opinion on all other parties and the court. This procedural safeguard ensures that all parties and the court are fully apprised of the non-public nature of the cited material.

It is important to note that the North Carolina Supreme Court has also addressed issues related to indictments and jurisdiction in a published case also titled *State v. Singleton*, 900 S.E.2d 802 (2024), which reversed an earlier Court of Appeals decision in *State v. Singleton*, 285 N.C. App. 630, 878 S.E.2d 653 (2022). This published Supreme Court decision is distinct from the unpublished Court of Appeals opinion, COA24-1051, filed on July 1, 2026, which is the subject of this article. The existence of similarly named cases underscores the need for careful verification of an opinion's publication status and court of origin. While courts occasionally cite their own unpublished decisions when they are "particularly relevant" or "persuasive" to a point, practitioners are generally advised to treat them as a last resort. The Court of Appeals has also agreed to publish opinions upon motion, as seen in *Hill v. Town of Kill Devil Hills*, when the decision is deemed to offer "valuable legal precedent."

The issuance of *State v. Singleton*, COA24-1051, as an unpublished opinion on July 1, 2026, serves as a timely reminder for North Carolina practitioners regarding the careful handling of such judicial pronouncements. While these opinions are readily accessible in the digital age, their non-precedential status under Rule 30(e)(3) of the North Carolina Rules of Appellate Procedure remains a cornerstone of the state's appellate practice. Attorneys must exercise caution, ensuring that any citation to an unpublished opinion strictly adheres to the rule's exceptions for claim preclusion, issue preclusion, or the law of the case, and that the requisite procedural steps for service are followed.

For practitioners, the key takeaway is to prioritize published opinions as controlling legal authority. Unpublished opinions, while potentially offering insight into how courts have addressed similar factual patterns, should not be presented as binding precedent. Attorneys should remain vigilant for opportunities to move for publication of unpublished opinions that they believe offer significant precedential value, as demonstrated by recent successful efforts. Navigating this landscape effectively requires a thorough understanding of the rules and a commitment to robust, precedentially sound legal argumentation.