Smith's Criminal Case Compendium
Smith's Criminal Case Compendium
Table of Contents
Smith's Criminal Case Compendium
About
This compendium includes significant criminal cases by the U.S. Supreme Court & N.C. appellate courts, Nov. 2008 – Present. Selected 4th Circuit cases also are included.
Jessica Smith prepared case summaries Nov. 2008-June 4, 2019; later summaries are prepared by other School staff.
Instructions
Navigate using the table of contents to the left or by using the search box below. Use quotations for an exact phrase search. A search for multiple terms without quotations functions as an “or” search. Not sure where to start? The 5 minute video tutorial offers a guided tour of main features – Launch Tutorial (opens in new tab).
In this Onslow County case, the Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals decision finding no error in defendant’s sentence of life without parole for first-degree murder. Defendant’s co-defendant for this murder also appealed, and the Supreme Court considered that appeal in State v. Bell, 86A02-2, issued contemporaneously with this opinion.
In January of 2000, defendant and a co-defendant kidnapped and killed an eighty-nine-year-old woman. In 2001 defendant was tried for murder, and although the State sought the death penalty, defendant was sentenced to life without parole. The Supreme Court upheld this conviction on defendant’s initial appeal. Subsequently, defendant filed a motion for appropriate relief (MAR), arguing his mandatory life without parole sentence was unconstitutional under Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (2012), and a superior court concluded his sentence was valid in a hearing held in 2014. Defendant then appealed; however, before the Supreme Court could take up the appeal, defendant filed a second MAR arguing gender discrimination in jury selection under J.E.B. v. Alabama ex rel. T.B., 511 U.S. 127 (1994). The superior court considering this second MAR found a violation of J.E.B., and both MARs form the basis of the current opinion.
Taking up the J.E.B. claim first, the Supreme Court explained G.S. 15A-1419 operates as a bar to post-conviction review of certain issues like defendant’s J.E.B. claim, unless the defendant can demonstrate good cause under G.S. 15A-1419(c) or a fundamental miscarriage of justice under G.S. 15A-1419(e). For the reasons stated in State v. Bell, the Court held that defendant’s claim was barred under G.S. 15A-1419.
The Court then moved to the life without parole sentence, explaining defendant challenged the sentence on two fronts, that the sentence violated his Eighth Amendment rights and that the sentencing court disregarded mitigating evidence and failed to properly weigh the evidence. The Court disagreed with both of defendant’s assertions, highlighting that the procedure in G.S. 15A-1340.19, the Miller-fix statute, conforms to federal law.
The Court first clarified that “the inquiry is not whether a defendant is permanently incorrigible or irreparably corrupt; nor is it potential for redemption[,]” meaning that the only requirement was that the superior court comply with the Miller-fix statute when conducting its inquiry. Slip Op. at 18. After establishing this framework, the Court walked through defendant’s specific challenges to the various conclusions of the superior court, finding no abuse of discretion. The Court concluded by dismissing defendant’s argument that the Court of Appeals applied an improper standard of review, and affirmed the Court of Appeals decision.
Justice Earls, joined by Justice Riggs, concurred in the result only, and wrote to highlight issues with the majority’s analysis. Id. at 36.
In this Watauga County case, the Supreme Court majority affirmed the Court of Appeals decision finding no error with the imposition of two consecutive life sentences without parole for defendant’s first-degree murder convictions.
In April of 2019, when defendant was a senior in high school and seventeen years old, he stabbed his mother and father to death with a large kitchen knife. Defendant then took steps to cover up the murder, washing away the blood inside their home and hiding the bodies under bags of mulch and leaves from the yard, and went to smoke marijuana with his friends. After defendant was convicted of two counts of first-degree murder, the sentencing court performed the analysis required by G.S. 15A-1340.19B and -1340.19C, and sentenced defendant to two consecutive sentences of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. The Court of Appeals majority found no error, but defendant appealed based on the dissent, leading to the current opinion.
Taking up defendant’s appeal, the Supreme Court first explained the body of law around sentencing juveniles to life sentences without parole, including Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (2012), and North Carolina’s statutes implementing Miller’s process requirements in G.S. 15A-1340.19A to -1340.19D. Defendant argued that the Court of Appeals did not conduct a thorough appellate review of the sentencing court’s order, a proposition the Court rejected, noting “the majority below determined that the sentencing court’s written order showed that it exercised discretion consistent with the Eighth Amendment in sentencing defendant.” Slip Op. at17. The Court also rejected defendant’s argument that the Court of Appeals failed to apply the abuse of discretion standard, as the majority opinion concluded the sentencing court’s decision “was not arbitrary” Id. at 20. Finally, the Court rejected defendant’s challenges to the sentencing court’s consideration and weighting of evidence, as “the sentencing court considered defendant’s mitigating evidence and made explicit findings in its written order.” Id. at 22. The Court explained “[i]n the absence of express evidence that demonstrates a sentencing court did not consider mitigating evidence or exercise its discretion, we will not presume error.” Id. Here, defendant did not demonstrate the sentencing court refused to consider mitigating evidence, but instead challenged the weight and conclusions it reached, arguments the Court held had no merit.
Justice Earls, joined by Justice Riggs, dissented and would have reversed the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remanded for a new sentencing hearing. Id. at 27.
In this Cumberland County case, the Supreme Court majority affirmed an unpublished Court of Appeals decision denying defendant’s constitutional challenge to his sentences of life without parole for murders committed while he was a juvenile.
In August of 1998, defendant was seventeen years old, and a member of the Crips gang, when he participated in the abduction and robbery of three women; defendant and the gang killed two of the women, but one woman survived. Defendant was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to death, but the sentence was reduced to two consecutive life sentences without parole after the holding in Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551 (2005), that sentencing juvenile offenders to death was unconstitutional. The Supreme Court subsequently held in Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (2012), that a mandated life without parole sentence for a juvenile was unconstitutional, but permitted sentencing where the trial court had discretion to impose a lesser sentence. Defendant was resentenced in accordance with the Miller-fix statute adopted by the General Assembly, resulting in the imposition of two consecutive terms of life without parole in March 2020. The Court of Appeals affirmed the sentences in the unpublished decision State v. Tirado, COA20-213 (June 15, 2021), leading to the current opinion.
On appeal, defendant argued that Article I, Section 27 of the North Carolina Constitution was more protective than the Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, and his sentences were cruel or unusual punishments and unconstitutional under North Carolina law. The Supreme Court disagreed, explaining that the Cruel or Unusual Punishment clause in the North Carolina Constitution prohibited imposing sentences beyond those authorized by law. The Court reached this conclusion by conducting a historical analysis of the clause along with Article XI, which provides a list of acceptable punishments and has no analogue in the U.S. Constitution. Summarizing the function of these two provisions, the Court noted:
Because a constitution cannot violate itself, we must construe Article I, Section 27’s proscription of cruel or unusual punishments and Article XI’s enumeration of acceptable punishments harmoniously. Logically, therefore, the punishments the people sanctioned in Article XI, Sections 1 and 2 are inherently not “cruel or unusual” in a constitutional sense. Accordingly, an act of the General Assembly cannot violate the Cruel or Unusual Punishments Clause by prescribing a punishment allowable under Article XI, Sections 1 and 2, and similarly, judges cannot violate Article I, Section 27, by handing down a sentence in obedience to such an act.
Slip Op. at 32 (cleaned up). Although defendant argued the North Carolina Constitution was more protective, the Court explained that the Eighth Amendment’s Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause provided more protection in modern jurisprudence and concluded the Court of Appeals properly evaluated and decided defendant’s appeal in light of the protections afforded by both.
The Court also determined that the trial court’s sentence complied with State v. Kelliher, 381 N.C. 558 (2022), as that opinion was released after defendant’s appeal. First the Court noted defendant’s case did not meet the criteria of that opinion because “Kelliher applies only to juvenile homicide offenders whom the trial court (1) expressly finds to be neither incorrigible nor irredeemable and (2) sentences to multiple, consecutive terms of life with parole.” Slip Op. at 43. Then the Court clarified that a portion of the Kelliher opinion was obiter dictum, as “the statement requiring the trial court to make an express finding of incorrigibility before sentencing a defendant to life without parole was unnecessary in determining the outcome of the case.” Id. at 44.
Justice Berger, joined by Justices Barringer and Allen, concurred but wrote separately to express concerns with the Kelliher opinion and the precedential weight to which it is entitled. Id. at 46.
Justice Earls, joined by Justice Riggs, concurred in the result only and argued that the majority’s assertions regarding Article I, Section 27 were unnecessary and should be interpreted as dicta. Id. at 50.
In this Cleveland County case, defendant appealed the result of his resentencing hearing for life without parole and the denial of his constitutional challenges to his sentence. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s orders.
In 1999, defendant received a sentence of life without parole for a murder committed when he was 16 years old. Subsequently, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (2012), holding that mandatory life without parole sentences for defendants under age 18 were unconstitutional, and Montgomery v. Louisiana, 577 U.S. 190 (2016), holding that Miller v. Alabama was retroactive. The General Assembly adopted G.S. 15A-1340.19A, referred to by the court as “the Miller statute,” to require a resentencing hearing for every defendant convicted of first-degree murder committed while under 18 and with a sentence of life without parole. Slip Op. at 2. Defendant’s Miller resentencing hearing in 2020 gave rise to the current case.
The Court of Appeals considered three arguments from defendant. First, defendant argued that the resentencing judge erred when he “impermissibly assessed the credibility of witnesses who testified during the 1999 trial, where he was not the presiding judge at that trial.” Id. at 3. The court disagreed, pointing to the language of the Miller statute as well as general practice allowing substitution of new judges during criminal trials. The court concluded “the judge thoroughly reviewed the record and could appropriately assess the credibility of the two co-defendants who testified against Defendant at the 1999 trial.” Id. at 6.
Defendant next argued that the trial court improperly weighed several mitigating factors: “(1) age, (2) immaturity, (3) reduced ability to appreciate risks and consequences, (4) family and peer pressure exerted upon the defendant, and (5) the defendant’s likelihood to benefit from rehabilitation.” Id. at 7. The court walked through the analysis for each factor, concluding the trial court did not abuse its discretion when considering the mitigating factors.
Finally, the court reached defendant’s constitutional arguments that (1) the Miller statute was unconstitutional as it contained a presumption in favor of life without parole and lacks guidance for resentencing, and (2) that life without parole sentences for juvenile offenders is unconstitutional under the Eighth Amendment and North Carolina constitution. The court rejected both arguments, noting for (1) that State v. James, 371 N.C. 77 (2018), upheld the constitutionality of the Miller statute, and for (2) that State v. Conner, 381 N.C. 643 (2022), and State v. Kelliher, 381 N.C. 558 (2022), upheld the constitutionality of life without parole sentences. Slip Op. at 10.
In this Craven County case, defendant appealed the trial court’s recommendation to the parole commission that he should not be granted parole and his judgment should not be altered or commuted. The Court of Appeals vacated the trial court’s recommendation and remanded for further proceedings.
Defendant’s appeal arose from the former G.S. 15A-1380.5, which was repealed in 1998. That section permitted a defendant sentenced to life without parole to petition for review of their sentence after 25 years served. The Court of Appeals first established that defendant had a right to appeal the trial court’s recommendation to the parole commission under the language of the former statute, concluding it was a “final judgment” and defendant had a right to review for “abuse of discretion.” Slip Op. at 6. The court then moved to the findings, and lack thereof, in the trial court’s order, holding “the findings in the Order are insufficient for us to conduct a meaningful review of the trial court’s reasoning.” Id. at 8. The court vacated the order, remanding so the trial court could either make additional findings or reconsider its recommendation.
In this Cumberland County case, defendant appealed the superior court order sentencing him to life in prison without the possibility of parole (LWOPP) for two counts of first-degree murder committed while he was a juvenile. The Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court’s order.
In 1998, defendant was convicted of murdering two law enforcement officers and was sentenced to death. Defendant was 17 years old at the time of the murders. Defendant’s convictions were upheld on direct appeal in State v. Golphin, 352 N.C. 364 (2000). After defendant was convicted, the U.S. Supreme Court issued Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551 (2005), holding death sentences for juveniles violated the Eighth Amendment; Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (2012), holding that a mandatory sentence of LWOPP was unconstitutional for a juvenile; and Montgomery v. Louisiana, 577 U.S. 190 (2016), holding that Miller’sprohibition on mandatory LWOPP must be applied retroactively to those already sentenced to mandatory LWOPP. Defendant was initially resentenced to mandatory LWOPP in December of 2005, after filing a motion for appropriate relief (MAR) under Roper. In the current case, defendant filed a MAR in July of 2018, alleging his sentence was unconstitutional under Miller and Montgomery. A sentencing hearing was held in 2022, where the MAR court reviewed the nine mitigating factors from G.S. 15A-1340.19B and sentenced defendant to consecutive sentences of LWOPP.
The Court of Appeals first explained the scope of its review was abuse of discretion, and that the relevant considerations were the mitigating factors from G.S. 15A-1340.19B(c), along with the additional factor from State v. Kelliher, 381 N.C. 558 (2022), that the sentencing court must make an express finding of “a juvenile’s permanent incorrigibility” before imposing LWOPP. Slip Op. at 12. The court then grouped defendant’s arguments in two categories, (1) that defendant’s sentence of LWOPP should be reversed based on Kelliherbecause he was capable of reform, and (2) the MAR court incorrectly weighed the mitigating factors of G.S. 15A-1340.19B. Taking up (1), the court quickly dispensed with defendant’s arguments, as defendant did not challenge the findings of fact as unsupported by the evidence and they were binding on his appeal.
Because defendant did not challenge the findings of fact, the court moved to (2), and specifically the weight the MAR court gave to each of the nine mitigating factors and the express finding of incorrigibility under Kelliher. A significant portion of the opinion (pages 15 to 30) were spent examining the factors and the weight given by the MAR court to each. The court ultimately concluded that “the Sentencing Order properly addressed each factor as required by [G.S.] 15A-1340.19A and Kelliher.” Id. at 31. After noting the possible differing views on the mitigating impact of the factors, the court found no abuse of discretion and affirmed the order.
The defendant, 17 years old at the time of his crime, was charged with first-degree murder based on his role in a murder committed by one of his acquaintances during a robbery. Trial testimony indicated that the defendant orchestrated the killing. He was convicted by a jury of first-degree murder. At sentencing, the trial judge reviewed mitigating circumstances as required by G.S. 15A-1340.19B(c) to decide whether to impose a sentence of life without parole or life with the possibility of parole after 25 years. Among other findings, the trial court found no evidence of particular immaturity, no evidence of mental illness, and “no evidence . . . that the defendant would benefit from rehabilitation and confinement other than that of other . . . persons who may be incarcerated for . . . first degree murder.” The trial court concluded that any mitigating factors were “outweighed by other evidence in this case of the offense and the manner in which it was committed” and sentenced the defendant to life without parole. The court of appeals vacated the sentence, concluding that the trial court applied an incorrect legal standard by focusing on the nature of the offense and not whether the defendant was, within the meaning of Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (2012), “the rare juvenile offender who exhibits such irretrievable depravity that rehabilitation is impossible and life without parole is justified.” The trial court also erred by comparing the young defendant to the broader class of all persons who may be incarcerated for first-degree murder, including adults. The court of appeals remanded the case to the trial court for resentencing consistent with its opinion, emphasizing that the mitigation evidence put on by the defendant (including his youth, his violent home environment, his potential for rehabilitation) “seemingly implicated every factor Miller identified as counseling against sentencing a juvenile to life without the possibility of parole.” Slip op. at 24 (emphasis in original). A dissenting judge would have affirmed the sentence of life without parole.
In a case where the trial court found that the juvenile’s likelihood of rehabilitation was uncertain and sentenced him to life in prison without parole, the court vacated and remanded for the defendant to be resentenced to life with the possibility of parole. The defendant was convicted of two counts of first-degree murder. He was 17 years old at the time of the crimes. The trial court sentenced the defendant to two consecutive terms of life in prison without the possibility of parole. Following the United States Supreme Court’s Miller decision, the defendant sought and obtained a new sentencing hearing. After considering the evidence and arguments by counsel at the new hearing, the trial court entered an order that concluded, in part: “There is no certain prognosis of Defendant[’]s possibility of rehabilitation. The speculation of Defendant’s ability to be rehabilitated can only be given minimal weight as a mitigating factor.” The trial court sentenced the defendant to two consecutive sentences of life without parole and the defendant appealed.
Citing state Supreme Court precedent, the court quickly rejected the defendant’s argument that G.S. 15A-1340.19B (the post-Miller sentencing scheme for juveniles) is unconstitutional on its face.
However, the court agreed with the defendant that the trial court’s finding that the defendant’s potential for rehabilitation was speculative rendered him ineligible for life without parole. The court noted that the case required it to address a question of first impression: whether the Supreme Court’s holdings require trial courts to determine, as a threshold matter, whether a juvenile defendant is eligible for such punishment independent of other relevant factors, or whether it merely identifies additional factors that the trial court must consider as it weighs the totality of circumstances in making its sentencing decision. Considering the case law, the court stated:
[W]e hold that whether a defendant qualifies as an individual within the class of offenders who are irreparably corrupt is a threshold determination that is necessary before a life sentence without parole may be imposed by the trial court. This holding is not inconsistent with the North Carolina Supreme Court’s rejection of a specific factfinding requirement. Rather, we hold that, when a trial court does make a finding about a juvenile offender’s possibility of rehabilitation that is inconsistent with the limited class of offenders defined by the United States Supreme Court, a sentence of life in prison without the possibility of parole is unconstitutional as applied to that offender.
Turning to the case at hand, the court concluded that “the trial court erred by imposing a sentence of life in prison without the possibility of parole after making a finding contrary to the defined class of irreparably corrupt offenders described in our precedent.” The trial court made an explicit finding that “there is no certain prognosis” for the defendant’s potential for rehabilitation. This finding directly conflicts with the limitation of life in prison without parole to juveniles who are “irreparably corrupt” and “permanently incorrigible.” It concluded: “Because the trial court made an explicit finding contrary to a determination that Defendant is one of those rarest of juvenile offenders for whom rehabilitation is impossible and a worthless endeavor, we hold the trial court erred by imposing a life sentence without the possibility of parole.”
In this case involving a defendant who was 15 years old at the time of his crimes, and as conceded by the State, the trial court failed to make sufficient findings to support two sentences of life without parole. On appeal the defendant argued that although the trial court listed each of the statutory mitigating factors under G.S. 15A-1340.19B(c), it failed to expressly state the evidence supporting or opposing those mitigating factors as required by relevant case law. The State conceded that this was error and the court remanded.
(1) Because the trial court failed to make statutorily required findings of fact addressing statutory mitigating factors prior to sentencing the juvenile defendant to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole, a new sentencing hearing was required. The defendant was convicted of first-degree murder and attempted robbery with a dangerous weapon. The trial court sentenced the defendant to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole on the murder charge. Immediately after judgment was entered, the defendant gave oral notice of appeal. Almost one month later, the trial court entered an order making findings of fact based on G.S. 15A-1340.19B to support its determination that the defendant should be sentenced to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole, as opposed to a lesser sentence of life imprisonment with the possibility of parole. The court agreed with the defendant that the trial court erred by sentencing him to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole, where it failed to make findings of fact and conclusions of law in support of the sentence. (2) Because the trial court had no jurisdiction to enter findings of fact after the defendant gave notice of appeal, the court vacated the order entered upon these findings. Once the defendant gave notice of appeal, the trial court’s jurisdiction was divested. Note: one judge concurred, but wrote separately to note concern about how the trial courts are addressing discretionary determinations of whether juvenile should be sentenced to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole.
Where the defendant was convicted of first-degree murder on the theories of felony murder and premeditation and deliberation, the trial court violated G.S. 15A-1340.19C(a) by imposing a sentence of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole without assessing mitigating factors, requiring a remand for a new sentencing hearing. The trial court’s findings of fact and order failed to comply with the statutory mandate requiring it to “include findings on the absence or presence of any mitigating factors[.]” The trial court’s order made “cursory, but adequate findings as to some mitigating circumstances but failed to address other factors at all. The court added:
We also note that portions of the findings of fact are more recitations of testimony, rather than evidentiary or ultimate findings of fact. The better practice is for the trial court to make evidentiary findings of fact that resolve any conflicts in the evidence, and then to make ultimate findings of fact that apply the evidentiary findings to the relevant mitigating factors . . . . If there is no evidence presented as to a particular mitigating factor, then the order should so state, and note that as a result, that factor was not considered. (citations omitted).