he shall be punished as a Class I felon.” Id. Specific acts which constitute a crime against nature have been defined by case law to include the offense with which defendant was charged in this case, cunnilingus. See State v. Joyner, 295 N.C. 55, 66, 243 S.E.2d 367, 374 (1978). Prior to Lawrence, our courts have upheld the constitutionality of section 14-177, finding it neither vague nor overbroad. See State v. Singleton, 85 N.C. App. 123, 130, 354 S.E.2d 259, 264 (1987); see also State v. Adams, 299 N.C. 699, 264 S.E.2d 46 (1980); State v. Poe, 40 N.C. App. 385, 252 S.E.2d 843 (1979). In light of the United States Supreme Court’s pronouncements in Lawrence, however, we must now reconsider the constitutionality of this law. See State v. Gray, 268 N.C. 69, 79, 150 S.E.2d 1, 9 (1966) (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, we begin with an examination of
holding that our courts are bound by the united states supreme courts interpretation of the federal constitution holding that the ninth circuit is bound by the california supreme courts interpretation of california law holding that the federal habeas courts task is to determine if the state courts decision was contrary to or involved an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law as determined by the supreme court of the united states recognizing that federal courts are bound by pronouncements of the california supreme court on applicable state law holding that state courts in construing and interpreting state law are not bound by the decisions of federal courts