Appeal from a trial court order granting defendant's motion for appropriate relief, vacating defendant's convictions and sentence of death, and ordering a new trial; whether the trial court erred in granting the motion for appropriate relief based upon its conclusion that defendant's counsel was ineffective for failing to call or consult with various available witnesses in a capital proceeding.

Review of recommendation to censure.

Dismissal of custody action for lack of standing; whether the plaintiff alleged sufficient facts both to prove a close relationship to child and to overcome defendants' protected status as natural parents.

Whether landowners' operation of a firing range in an unincorporated area of the county is subject to the county zoning ordinance regulating outdoor firing ranges; whether the Court of Appeals erred in vacating the superior court's order that declared the use legal and remanding the matter to the Board of Adjustment for necessary findings of fact.

Termination of parental rights; whether the trial court received sufficient evidence and made adequate findings of fact to support an adjudication of grounds under N.C.G.S. 7B-1111(a)(1) and (7).

Whether the State presented sufficient evidence of an aggravating factor--that defendant took advantage of a position of trust or confidence, including a domestic relationship--to submit that aggravating factor to the jury.

Motion to suppress evidence seized from defendant's house and vehicle; whether the affidavit for the search warrant contained sufficient information to establish probable cause to conduct the searches.

Termination of parental rights; whether the trial court erred by finding there was sufficient evidence of respondent's willful failure to pay child support or that respondent willfully abandoned his children; whether the trial court abused its discretion in determining the children's best interests.

Appeal from dismissal of respondent-father's appeal from an order terminating his parental rights; whether the Court of Appeals was required to conduct an independent review of the merits of the father's arguments after his appellate counsel submitted a no-merit brief pursuant to Appellate Rule 3.1.