State v. Walker, COA 24-615, ___ N.C. App. ___ (Apr. 16, 2025)

In this Wake County case, defendant appealed the order determining that his sentence of life without parole should not be altered under G.S. 15A-1380.5. The Court of Appeals found no abuse of discretion or error and affirmed the trial court’s order.

Defendant was found guilty of first-degree murder in 1999 and received the sentence of life without the possibility of parole. In September of 2023, defendant requested review of his sentence under G.S. 15A-1380.5. After the trial court reviewed the trial record, defendant’s record from the Department of Corrections, the degree of risk posed to society, and other issues, the trial court determined defendant’s sentence should not be altered. Defendant subsequently filed a petition for writ of certiorari to appeal this decision, and the Court of Appeals granted certiorari in April 2024.

Defendant argued three issues on appeal: (1) abuse of discretion in failing to make findings of fact to support the denial, (2) error in failing to consider the trial record, and (3) abuse of discretion by not holding a hearing. The Court of Appeals looked to the text of G.S. 15A-1380.5 and caselaw interpreting it to determine the applicable requirements. The court first dispensed with the hearing issue (3), explaining “[o]ur Supreme Court has held that [G.S.] 15A-1380.5 ‘guarantees no hearing, no notice, and no procedural rights.’” Slip Op. at 5 (quoting State v. Young, 369 N.C. 118, 124 (2016)). Next the court moved to (1), noting the structure of G.S. 15A-1380.5 did not call for an “order” with findings of fact and conclusions of law, but instead called for a “recommendation,” and “[h]ad the legislature intended for findings of fact and conclusions of law to be required it could have chosen to require the reviewing judge to issue orders, rather than recommendations.” Id. at 6. Finally, the court noted in (2) that the trial court clearly stated it had considered the record, and the court determined the record supported the trial court’s conclusion.