The Court held that the Eighth Amendment’s Excessive Fines Clause is an “incorporated” protection applicable to the States under the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. Tyson Timbs pleaded guilty in Indiana state court to dealing in a controlled substance and conspiracy to commit theft. The trial court sentenced him to one year of home detention and five years of probation, which included a court-supervised addiction-treatment program. The sentence also required Timbs to pay fees and costs totaling $1,203. At the time of Timbs’s arrest, the police seized his vehicle, a Land Rover SUV Timbs had purchased for about $42,000. Timbs paid for the vehicle with money he received from an insurance policy when his father died. The State engaged a law firm to bring a civil suit for forfeiture of the Land Rover, charging that the vehicle had been used to transport heroin. After Timbs’s guilty plea in the criminal case, the trial court held a hearing on the forfeiture. Although finding that Timbs’s vehicle had been used to facilitate violation of a criminal statute, the court denied the requested forfeiture, observing that Timbs had recently purchased the vehicle for $42,000, more than four times the maximum $10,000 monetary fine assessable against him for his drug conviction. Forfeiture of the Land Rover, the court determined, would be grossly disproportionate to the gravity of Timbs’s offense, hence unconstitutional under the Eighth Amendment’s Excessive Fines Clause. The Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed that determination, but the Indiana Supreme Court reversed. The state Supreme Court did not decide whether the forfeiture would be excessive. Instead, it held that the Excessive Fines Clause constrains only federal action and is inapplicable to state impositions. The US Supreme Court granted certiorari. The question presented was: Is the Eighth Amendment’s Excessive Fines Clause an “incorporated” protection applicable to the States under the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause? The Court answered in the affirmative, stating:

Like the Eighth Amendment’s proscriptions of “cruel and unusual punishment” and “[e]xcessive bail,” the protection against excessive fines guards against abuses of government’s punitive or criminal law-enforcement authority. This safeguard, we hold, is “fundamental to our scheme of ordered liberty,” with “dee[p] root[s] in [our] history and tradition.” McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U. S. 742, 767 (2010) (internal quotation marks omitted; emphasis deleted). The Excessive Fines Clause is therefore incorporated by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

The Court went on to reject the State of Indiana’s argument that the Excessive Fines Clause does not apply to its use of civil in rem forfeitures.

This Cumberland County case came before the Supreme Court on discretionary review of the opinion of the Court of Appeals, 273 N.C. App. 616 (2020). The defendant, James Kelliher, pled guilty to two counts of first-degree murder for crimes committed when he was 17 years old in 2001. He received consecutive sentences of life without parole. After the Supreme Court of the United States decided Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (2012), the defendant was resentenced to consecutive sentences of life with the possibility of parole after 25 years, which would make him parole eligible after 50 years, when he will be 67 years old. The Court of Appeals concluded that because the trial court had found that Kelliher was “neither incorrigible nor irredeemable,” the lengthy period he would have to serve before being eligible for parole was a de facto sentence of life without parole in violation of the Eighth Amendment.

After the Court of Appeals decided the case but before it was heard before the Supreme Court of North Carolina, the Supreme Court of the United States decided Jones v. Mississippi, 141 S. Ct. 1307 (2021) (summarized here), holding that no specific findings are required to authorize a sentence of life without parole for a defendant who was a juvenile at the time of the offense. The decision in Jones prompted the State to argue before the Supreme Court that the defendant’s federal and state constitutional claims lacked merit.

The Court held that it violates the Eighth Amendment and article I, section 27 of the state constitution to sentence a juvenile defendant who, like Kelliher, has been determined to be “neither incorrigible nor irredeemable” to life without parole. The Court rejected the State’s argument that Jones repudiated the substantive Eighth Amendment rule of Miller and Montgomery v. Louisiana, 577 U.S. 190 (2016). Rather, Jones merely established that the Eighth Amendment does not require a sentencing court to make a specific finding that a juvenile homicide offender is permanently incorrigible before sentencing him or her to life without parole. Jones did not change the rule from Miller and Montgomery that a sentence of life without parole is unconstitutional for a defendant found to be “neither incorrigible nor irredeemable.”

The Court next considered whether Kelliher’s lengthy aggregate parole-eligibility period amounted to a de facto sentence of life without parole. The Court observed that the focus of the United States Supreme Court’s Eighth Amendment jurisprudence as applied to youthful defendants has been on “the nature of the offender, not the circumstances of the crime.” Slip op. ¶ 42. Therefore, the Court concluded, the underlying rule should not differ between sentences arising from a single offense and those arising from multiple offenses. Applying that principle, the Court concluded that Kelliher’s 50-year aggregate parole eligibility period is a de facto sentence of life without parole within the meaning of the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution.  

The Court went on to conclude that article I, section 27 of the North Carolina Constitution offers even broader protection for the defendant than the Eighth Amendment in this context. The Court disavowed a prior case, State v. Green, 348 N.C. 588 (1998), in which it had said that cruel and/or unusual punishment claims under article I, section 27 and the Eighth Amendment had historically been analyzed the same. Analyzing that broader protection in light of a clear majority of other jurisdictions to have considered the issue, the Court concluded that a 50-year parole eligibility period deprived the defendant of a meaningful opportunity to be released. In answer to the ultimate question of “how long is too long” under the state constitution, the Court “identif[ied] forty years as the threshold distinguishing a permissible sentence from an impresmissible de facto life without parole sentence for juveniles not found to be irredeemable.” Slip op. at ¶ 68. That number was informed by data from the United States Sentencing Commission, which has defined any sentence of 470 months (39 years and 2 months) or longer as a de facto life sentence in light of the average life expectancy of an inmate, as well as employment and retirement data from North Carolina.

The Court clarified that its interpretation of what constitutes cruel or unusual punishment as applied to a juvenile offender does not extend to adult offenders.

Having concluded that a 50-year parole-eligibility period constituted an impermissible de facto life without parole sentence, the Court remanded the case to the trial court with instructions to enter two concurrent sentences of life with the possibility of parole after 25 years, as that would be the only sentencing option that would not run afoul of the Court’s 40-year parole-eligibility threshold.

The Chief Justice, joined by Justice Berger and Justice Barringer, dissented, writing that North Carolina’s post-Miller statutory scheme for sentencing juvenile defendants, including the authority to impose consecutive sentences, complies with the federal and state constitutions, and that the consecutive sentences imposed here were not improper.

On discretionary review of a unanimous decision of the Court of Appeals, ___ N.C. App. ___, 786 S.E.2d 73 (2016), in this murder case where the defendant, who was a juvenile at the time of the offense, was resentenced to life in prison without parole under the state’s Miller-compliant sentencing scheme (G.S. 15A-1340.19A to -1340.19D), the court modified and affirmed the opinion below and remanded for further proceedings. In the Court of Appeals, the defendant argued that the trial court had, by resentencing him pursuant the new statutes, violated the constitutional prohibition against the enactment of ex post facto laws, that the statutory provisions subjected him to cruel and unusual punishment and deprived him of his rights to a trial by jury and to not be deprived of liberty without due process of law, and that the trial court failed to make adequate findings of fact to support its decision to impose a sentence of life without parole. In a unanimous opinion, the Court of Appeals upheld the constitutionality of the statutes while reversing the trial court’s resentencing order and remanding for further proceedings. The Court of Appeals remanded for the trial court to correct what it characterized as inadequate findings as to the presence or absence of mitigating factors to support its determination. Before the Supreme Court, the defendant argued that the Court of Appeals erred by holding that the statute creates a presumption in favor of life without parole and by rejecting his constitutional challenges to the statutory scheme.

The Supreme Court began its analysis by addressing whether or not G.S. 15A-1340.19C gives rise to a mandatory presumption that a juvenile convicted of first-degree murder on the basis of a theory other than felony murder should be sentenced to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. The court concluded, in part: “the relevant statutory language, when read in context, treats the sentencing decision required by N.C.G.S. § 15A-1340.19C(a) as a choice between two equally appropriate sentencing alternatives and, at an absolute minimum, does not clearly and unambiguously create a presumption in favor of sentencing juvenile defendants convicted of first-degree murder on the basis of a theory other than the felony murder rule to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole.” Thus, the Court of Appeals erred by construing the statutory language as incorporating such a presumption. The court offered this instruction for trial judges:

On the contrary, trial judges sentencing juveniles convicted of first-degree murder on the basis of a theory other than the felony murder rule should refrain from presuming the appropriateness of a sentence of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole and select between the available sentencing alternatives based solely upon a consideration of “the circumstances of the offense,” “the particular circumstances of the defendant,” and “any mitigating factors,” N.C.G.S. § 15A-1340.19C(a), as they currently do in selecting a specific sentence from the presumptive range in a structured sentencing proceeding, in light of the United States Supreme Court’s statements in Miller and its progeny to the effect that sentences of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole should be reserved for those juvenile defendants whose crimes reflect irreparable corruption rather than transient immaturity.

The court then rejected the defendant’s argument that the statutory scheme was unconstitutionally vague, concluding that the statutes “provide sufficient guidance to allow a sentencing judge to make a proper, non-arbitrary determination of the sentence that should be imposed upon a juvenile convicted of first-degree murder on a basis other than the felony murder rule to satisfy due process requirements.” The court also rejected the defendant’s arbitrariness argument. Finally, the court rejected the defendant’s ex post facto argument, holding that the Court of Appeals correctly determined that the statutory scheme does not allow for imposition of a different or greater punishment than was permitted when the crime was committed. In this respect, it held: because the statutes “make a reduced sentence available to defendant and specify procedures that a sentencing judge is required to use in making the sentencing decision, we believe that defendant’s challenge to the validity of the relevant statutory provisions as an impermissible ex post facto law is without merit.” Justices Beasley and Hudson dissented. 

In this Mecklenburg County case, the defendant was charged with two class H felonies (felonious breaking or entering and larceny after breaking or entering) in October of 2016, when he was 16 years of age and before “raise the age” was implemented through the Juvenile Justice Reinvestment Act. The charges were under the exclusive jurisdiction of the criminal law under the law in place at the time of the offense. Raise the age was passed in 2017 and applied prospectively, beginning with offenses committed on December 1, 2019. This case was set for trial in late 2017 and the defendant failed to appear. The defendant was arrested in 2019 and his case proceeded. The trial court granted a pretrial motion to dismiss, finding that the defendant’s constitutional rights to equal protection, protection from cruel and unusual punishment, and due process were violated by prosecution as an adult. The trial court went on to conclude that the loss of the benefit of Juvenile Court irreparably prejudiced the preparation of his case such that dismissal was the only remedy. The State appealed.

The Court of Appeals concluded that the defendant’s constitutional rights were not violated by trying him as an adult. As to the defendant’s equal protection argument, the Court concluded that under State v. Howren, 312 N.C. 454 (1984), there is no equal protection violation when the same group of people (here, 16-year-olds alleged to have committed a Class H felony) are treated differently at different times (here, before and after the effective date of the Juvenile Justice Reinvestment Act).

As to the defendant’s Eighth Amendment argument, the Court of Appeals concluded that trying a young defendant as an adult does not implicate the substantive limits on what can be made criminal without violating the constitutional prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment. Those limits have been invoked only in relation to the status of addiction to drugs or alcohol. Robinson v. California, 370 U.S. 660 (1962). In addition, the prosecution of juveniles as adults involves the procedure taken regarding a criminal offense alleged against a juvenile, not the substance of what is made criminal. Trying the defendant as an adult does not, the Court reasoned, criminalize a status like addiction. Rather, it punishes criminal behavior—here, breaking or entering and larceny, “offenses that are undoubtedly within the police powers of North Carolina.” ¶ 21. The Court thus rejected the defendant’s Eighth Amendment claim.

As to the defendant’s due process argument, the Court concluded that there is no fundamental right to be tried as a juvenile in criminal cases, and therefore no particular process due in relation to being tried in that way. The Court distinguished Kent v. United States, 383 U.S. 541 (1966), noting that the District of Columbia statutory structure at issue in Kent, which did mandate certain procedures before a case was transferred from juvenile to adult court, was distinct from North Carolina’s, in which a defendant’s case began in superior court by default. Turning to substantive due process, because no fundamental right was at issue, the Court applied rational basis review and concluded that the State had a legitimate interest in prosecuting and sentencing juveniles under the statutory scheme in place at the time they commit their offense.

In the absence of any constitutional violation, the Court of Appeals concluded that the trial court erred in granting the defendant’s motion to dismiss under G.S. 15A-954(a)(4). The Court thus reversed the trial court and remanded the case.

The defendant was sentenced to two consecutive sentences of life without parole for two murders he committed when he was 17 years old. The defendant filed an MAR requesting resentencing on the grounds that sentencing a juvenile to life without the possibility of parole was unconstitutional, pursuant to Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (2012) and G.S. 15A-1340.19A, et seq. The MAR was granted and the defendant was resentenced to two consecutive life sentences with parole.

On appeal, the defendant argued that his new sentence was unconstitutional since it amounted to a de facto sentence of life without parole. The majority opinion acknowledged that an identical sentence was held unconstitutional in State v. Kelliher, __ N.C. App. __, 849 S.E.2d 333 (2020), temp. stay allowed, __ N.C. __, 848 S.E.2d 493 (2020), but found that it was not binding precedent because the state Supreme Court stayed the decision and granted discretionary review. Turning to the case at hand, the appellate court held that “the sentences imposed by the trial court, though significant, are not unconstitutional.” Assuming that a de facto life sentence without parole would be unconstitutional, that argument did not apply to this defendant since he will be eligible for parole in 50 years. However, the appellate court did find that the trial court erred at the resentencing hearing by failing to consider whether concurrent sentences might be appropriate, due to a mistaken belief that concurrent sentences were not permissible under the statutes. The two sentences of life with parole were therefore affirmed, but the portion of the judgment ordering that the terms be consecutive was vacated and remanded for a new hearing to determine whether the sentences should be consecutive or concurrent.

Chief Judge McGee concurred in part and dissented in part. Judge McGee agreed that the statutes themselves do not prohibit consecutive sentences and also agreed that the defendant must be resentenced, but would have held that two consecutive sentences of life with parole do constitute a de facto sentence of life without parole, and are therefore unconstitutional as held in Kelliher.

The defendant was a participant in a double murder at the age of 17 and sentenced to consecutive terms of life without parole (“LWOP”) in Cumberland County in 2001. He moved for resentencing pursuant to Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (2012) (holding that mandatory life without parole sentences for juvenile offenders violates the 8th Amendment) and its progeny. The trial court determined at resentencing that the defendant did not present the rare case of an “irredeemable” or” incorrigible” juvenile, and therefore did not qualify for an LWOP sentence. The defendant’s evidence at resentencing showed an abusive childhood, early substance abuse, substantial educational and self-improvement while in prison. He also presented expert mental health testimony indicating he was at low-risk to reoffend and evidence of a near-perfect disciplinary record while in prison (among other evidence). The trial court resentenced the defendant to two consecutive terms of life with parole, which meant that the defendant would be parole-eligible after a term of at least 50 years. The defendant appealed, arguing that the sentence amounted to a de facto life sentence in violation of state and federal constitutional protections. The Court of Appeals unanimously agreed.

(1) The defendant’s challenge to his sentence was preserved. He raised Miller, the 8th Amendment, and comparable provisions of the state constitution in his MAR seeking resentencing, and specifically argued for concurrent life with parole sentences. The specific grounds of his objections to the sentence were thus clear from context and at least amounted to “an implied argument” that his sentence violated constitutional protections. Even if the argument was not preserved, the defendant asked the court to invoke Rule 2 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure to consider the argument, and the court found that invocation of the rule was appropriate here to review the constitutional issue.

(2) Conducting an extensive review of the Miller line of cases, the court made three rulings of first impression in the state. (2a) A “clear majority” of jurisdictions have held that a de facto life sentences are reviewable under Miller, and North Carolina joined that majority. To allow Miller protections to be circumvented by labeling a sentence a term of years as opposed to life without parole when the effect of the sentence would preclude a meaningful opportunity for release would render the constitutional protections hollow. “Roper, Graham, and Miller are all concerned with ‘imposing the harshest sentences on juvenile offenders, even when they commit terrible crimes.’ A de jure LWOP sentence is certainly as ‘harsh’ as its functional equivalent.” Kelliher Slip op. at 30. (2b) Concurrent sentences that aggregate to create a de facto life sentence for juveniles not otherwise eligible for LWOP violate the constitutional protections for the punishment of juveniles. The court recognized that courts around the country are “sharply divided” on this point. A majority of jurisdictions have determined that concurrent sentences may lead to an impermissible de facto life sentence, and North Carolina again joined that majority. “The applicability and scope of protection found in the Eighth Amendment . . . [turn] on the identity of the defendant, not on the crimes perpetrated.” Id. at 35. The court distinguished North Carolina law from that of other jurisdictions holding otherwise. (2c) The defendant’s sentence to consecutive life with parole terms was unconstitutional. The defendant would become eligible for parole at age 67 under his current sentence. This was long enough to constitute a de facto life sentence. In the words of the court: 

To release an individual after their opportunity to directly contribute to society—both through a career and in other respects, like raising a family—does not provide a meaningful opportunity to demonstrate the ‘maturity and rehabilitation’ required to obtain release and reenter society as required by Graham. Id. at 40 (citation omitted) (cleaned up).

The court observed that the defendant would not necessarily be released from prison even after becoming parole eligible. However, to afford the defendant the constitutional protections established by the Miller line of cases, the defendant’s consecutive sentences could not stand. The sentences were therefore vacated, and the trial court was ordered to impose concurrent life with parole sentences on remand.

In this child sexual assault case, the court rejected the defendant’s argument that the trial court’s consecutive sentences, totaling a minimum of 138 years, violated his constitutional right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment. The court began by finding that because the defendant failed to object to the sentencing on constitutional grounds in the trial court, he failed to preserve the issue for appellate review. The court went on however to reject the defendant’s argument on the merits. It noted that a punishment may be cruel or unusual if it is not proportionate to the crime for which the defendant has been convicted. Here, the trial court exercised its discretion and consolidated the 70 verdicts into six identical judgments, each of which were sentenced in the presumptive range, and the trial court ordered that these 276-month sentences be served consecutively.

On discretionary review of a unanimous decision of the Court of Appeals, ___ N.C. App. ___, 786 S.E.2d 73 (2016), in this murder case where the defendant, who was a juvenile at the time of the offense, was resentenced to life in prison without parole under the state’s Miller-compliant sentencing scheme (G.S. 15A-1340.19A to -1340.19D), the court modified and affirmed the opinion below and remanded for further proceedings. In the Court of Appeals, the defendant argued that the trial court had, by resentencing him pursuant the new statutes, violated the constitutional prohibition against the enactment of ex post facto laws, that the statutory provisions subjected him to cruel and unusual punishment and deprived him of his rights to a trial by jury and to not be deprived of liberty without due process of law, and that the trial court failed to make adequate findings of fact to support its decision to impose a sentence of life without parole. In a unanimous opinion, the Court of Appeals upheld the constitutionality of the statutes while reversing the trial court’s resentencing order and remanding for further proceedings. The Court of Appeals remanded for the trial court to correct what it characterized as inadequate findings as to the presence or absence of mitigating factors to support its determination. Before the Supreme Court, the defendant argued that the Court of Appeals erred by holding that the statute creates a presumption in favor of life without parole and by rejecting his constitutional challenges to the statutory scheme.

The Supreme Court began its analysis by addressing whether or not G.S. 15A-1340.19C gives rise to a mandatory presumption that a juvenile convicted of first-degree murder on the basis of a theory other than felony murder should be sentenced to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. The court concluded, in part: “the relevant statutory language, when read in context, treats the sentencing decision required by N.C.G.S. § 15A-1340.19C(a) as a choice between two equally appropriate sentencing alternatives and, at an absolute minimum, does not clearly and unambiguously create a presumption in favor of sentencing juvenile defendants convicted of first-degree murder on the basis of a theory other than the felony murder rule to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole.” Thus, the Court of Appeals erred by construing the statutory language as incorporating such a presumption. The court offered this instruction for trial judges:

On the contrary, trial judges sentencing juveniles convicted of first-degree murder on the basis of a theory other than the felony murder rule should refrain from presuming the appropriateness of a sentence of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole and select between the available sentencing alternatives based solely upon a consideration of “the circumstances of the offense,” “the particular circumstances of the defendant,” and “any mitigating factors,” N.C.G.S. § 15A-1340.19C(a), as they currently do in selecting a specific sentence from the presumptive range in a structured sentencing proceeding, in light of the United States Supreme Court’s statements in Miller and its progeny to the effect that sentences of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole should be reserved for those juvenile defendants whose crimes reflect irreparable corruption rather than transient immaturity.

The court then rejected the defendant’s argument that the statutory scheme was unconstitutionally vague, concluding that the statutes “provide sufficient guidance to allow a sentencing judge to make a proper, non-arbitrary determination of the sentence that should be imposed upon a juvenile convicted of first-degree murder on a basis other than the felony murder rule to satisfy due process requirements.” The court also rejected the defendant’s arbitrariness argument. Finally, the court rejected the defendant’s ex post facto argument, holding that the Court of Appeals correctly determined that the statutory scheme does not allow for imposition of a different or greater punishment than was permitted when the crime was committed. In this respect, it held: because the statutes “make a reduced sentence available to defendant and specify procedures that a sentencing judge is required to use in making the sentencing decision, we believe that defendant’s challenge to the validity of the relevant statutory provisions as an impermissible ex post facto law is without merit.” Justices Beasley and Hudson dissented. 

The defendant pled guilty to possession of cocaine and possession of methamphetamine pursuant to a plea agreement that required the State to dismiss other charges and to refrain from indicting him as a habitual felon. At the plea hearing, the trial court conducted a plea colloquy and asked defense counsel, “‘How much time do you have in this?’” Counsel replied “‘9.5 hours.’” Slip op. at ¶ 2. The trial court accepted the plea and sentenced the defendant to two consecutive active terms of seven to 18 months. The trial court also entered a civil judgment ordering the defendant to pay $570 in attorney’s fees and a $60 appointment fee.

The defendant appealed the civil judgment for attorney’s fees and petitioned for certiorari review. The Court dismissed the defendant’s pro se appeal based on his failure to specify the judgment from which he was appealing, but granted certiorari review. 

The Court noted that while a trial court may enter a civil judgment against a convicted defendant for the amount of fees incurred by his or her court-appointed attorney, the defendant must be provided notice and an opportunity to heard before such a judgment may be entered. Trial courts must ask defendants personally (not through counsel) whether they wish to be heard on the issue before imposing judgment. The record in the case below demonstrated that the defendant was not provided notice or an opportunity to be heard. Thus, the Court of Appeals held that the trial court erred by imposing the civil judgment for attorney’s fees, vacated the judgment, and remanded for further proceedings.

In this Wake County case, defendant appealed his convictions for first-degree rape of a child and first-degree sexual offense with a child based on error in the admission of testimony regarding a prior alleged assault and in sentencing. The Court of Appeals found no error in the admission of evidence under North Carolina Rule of Evidence 404(b), but improper considerations in sentencing that justified remanding the matter for resentencing. 

The State filed a pretrial notice of Rule 404(b) evidence, and defendant countered with a motion in limine to preclude the State from introducing any evidence related to sexual assaults in Durham, NC. At trial, the State offered testimony from the victim in this matter regarding the sexual assaults she experienced in or around August or September of 2015. The State then called the Rule 404(b) witness to testify about an alleged sexual assault by defendant that she experienced in in February of 2015, in Durham. Both the victim and the other witness were students at middle schools where defendant was a teacher. The trial court allowed testimony from the Rule 404(b) witness in front of the jury. 

The Court of Appeals considered defendant’s argument that the Rule 404(b) testimony was not similar to the crime charged and was unduly prejudicial, noting that Rule 404(b) is generally an inclusive rule if the evidence is relevant to any issue besides propensity to commit the crime charged. Slip Op. at ¶ 17. Additionally, the court noted that North Carolina precedent regarding the admissibility of Rule 404(b) evidence in sexual assault cases has been “very liberal.” Slip Op. at ¶ 20, quoting State v. White, 331 N.C. 604, 612 (1992). Because the crimes charged in this matter and the assault described by the Rule 404(b) witness were sufficiently similar and not too remote in time, the court found no error in admitting the testimony. 

Considering defendant’s second argument regarding sentencing, the court found error due to the trial court’s improper consideration of defendant’s choice to receive a trial by jury. At the sentencing hearing, the trial court addressed defendant regarding the victim and 404(b) witness, saying “[a]nd in truth, they get traumatized again by being here, but it’s absolutely necessary when a defendant pleads not guilty. They didn’t have a choice and you, Mr. Pickens, had a choice.” Slip Op. at ¶ 32. Immediately after this quote, the trial court imposed consecutive sentences. The Court of Appeals found a clear inference that the trial court imposed consecutive sentences because defendant did not plead guilty and went to trial. As such, the court vacated the sentence and remanded for resentencing. 

Judge Murphy dissented by separate opinion.

The defendant’s sentence was impermissibly based on his exercise of his constitutional rights. At the sentencing hearing, the trial court noted more than once that the defendant "was given an opportunity to plead guilty[,]" and that his failure to plead was one of the "factors that the Court considers when the Court fashions judgment." The trial court also admonished the defendant and defense counsel for "unnecessarily" protracting the trial for 6 days when it should have only taken 2 days.

In this Watauga County case, defendant appealed his convictions for first-degree murder for killing his parents one month before he turned eighteen years old, arguing error in sentencing him to two consecutive life sentences without parole. The Court of Appeals majority found no error.

On one day in April of 2019, defendant attacked and killed both of his parents in separate attacks, using a large knife to stab both of them to death. He then spent several hours cleaning the crime scene and attempting to conceal his crimes. Then defendant picked up his younger brother from his grandmother’s house, dropped him off in the home, and stayed with a friend that night. The next day defendant attempted to flee but was caught after crossing into Tennessee. Defendant was found guilty of both counts of first-degree murder by a jury, and the judge sentenced him to consecutive life sentences without parole. 

The Court of Appeals explained that defendant’s argument rested upon G.S. 15A-1340.19B, the statute providing appropriate procedure for sentencing a juvenile to life without the possibility of parole, and that his sentencing violated the Eighth Amendment of the federal constitution and Article 1, Section 27 of the state constitution. The court first looked at the Eighth Amendment issue and applicable U.S. Supreme Court precedent, concluding “[t]he procedure employed by the sentencing judge met the requirements of the Eighth Amendment as articulated by the United States Supreme Court in [Jones v. Mississippi, 141 S. Ct. 1307 (2021)] and was at least as robust as the procedure employed by the Mississippi judge in Jones.” Slip Op. at 7. 

Moving to the North Carolina statute and constitutional concerns, the court noted that G.S. 15A-134019B provides the defendant with the opportunity to offer evidence towards eight specific, non-exclusive mitigating factors. Here the court reviewed six factors provided by defendant in his brief and concluded “the sentencing judge considered the evidence presented concerning mitigating factors, including those enumerated in the sentencing statute” and complied with G.S. 15A-1340.19B. Id. at 13. Finally, looking at the North Carolina constitution’s prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment and applicable caselaw, applying State v. Kelliher, 381 N.C. 558, (2022), for the concept that the North Carolina constitution offers broader protection of juvenile offenders than the federal constitution. Id.at 14. Despite this broader protection, defendant was not entitled to reversal, as “the trial court expressly found that ‘it did not believe that there is a likelihood of rehabilitation in confinement’ and that Defendant’s crimes ‘demonstrate a condition of irreparable corruption and permanent incorrigibility.’” Id. 

Judge Arrowood provided a lengthy dissent discussing the applicable constitutional requirements and caselaw precedent, and would have vacated and remanded for resentencing because the trial court violated G.S. 15A-1340.19B, the Eighth Amendment, and Article 1, Section 27. 

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.

In this Wake County case, defendant petitioned for writ of certiorari after pleading guilty to robbery and trafficking heroin charges, arguing the trial court did not properly consider mitigating factors during his sentencing. The Court of Appeals disagreed, denying the petition for writ. 

Defendant argued that his cooperation and testimony against a co-conspirator represented mitigating factors the trial court should have applied in sentencing. Summarizing why defendant’s petition did not have merit, the court noted that defendant’s appeal was based on precedent related to the Fair Sentencing Act, which was repealed and replaced with the Structured Sentencing Act. Under the Structured Sentencing Act, a trial court is under no obligation to mitigate a sentence, and in the current matter the trial court sentenced defendant within the presumptive range for his offenses. The court explained that “[b]ecause the trial court sentenced defendant within the presumptive range, as this Court has stated many times, it was not required to find mitigating factors or sentence defendant to a mitigated sentence.” Slip Op. at 5. 

Because the trial court did not depart from the presumptive range in sentencing the defendant, it was not required to make any findings regarding mitigation. The court rejected the defendant’s argument that the trial court erroneously failed to “consider” evidence of mitigating factors proved by the State’s own evidence.

Trial court did not err by declining to find two statutory mitigating factors: G.S. 15A-1340.16(e)(12) (good character/reputation in the community) and 15A-1340.16(e)(19) (positive employment history). The court rejected the defendant’s argument that the evidence supporting each factor was uncontradicted and manifestly credible.

The trial court did not abuse its discretion by refusing the defendant’s request for a mitigated sentence despite uncontroverted evidence of mitigating circumstances. The defendant offered uncontroverted evidence of mitigating factors and the trial court considered this evidence during the sentencing hearing. That the trial court did not, however, find any mitigating factors and chose to sentence the defendant in the presumptive range was within its discretion.

In this Robeson County case, defendant appealed his conviction for misdemeanor death by vehicle, arguing error as (1) the prayer for judgment continued (PJC) was intended to be a final judgment in the matter, and (2) the almost seven-year delay in entering judgment was unreasonable. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s judgment. 

In October of 2011, defendant crossed the center line of a roadway when attempting to turn left, causing a collision with a motorcyclist who died of injuries sustained in the collision. Defendant pleaded guilty to misdemeanor death by vehicle in October of 2014. Defendant’s plea agreement required him to plead guilty and acknowledge responsibility in open court, and stated the trial court would then enter a prayer for judgment in the matter. In August of 2020, defendant was charged with involuntary manslaughter due to another motor vehicle accident, and the State moved to pray judgment in the misdemeanor death by vehicle case. Over defendant’s opposition, the trial court granted the State’s motion and entered a judgment imposing a sentence of imprisonment that was suspended for supervised probation.  

Considering issue (1), the Court of Appeals noted that applicable precedent has made a distinction between PJCs that impose conditions “amounting to punishment” versus PJCs that do not. Slip Op. at 5. Conditions amounting to punishment include fines and imprisonment terms, whereas orders such as requiring defendant to obey the law or pay court costs do not represent punishment for this distinction. Here the court found no conditions amounting to punishment and rejected defendant’s argument that the trial court’s statement “that he hoped ‘both sides can have some peace and resolution in the matter’” represented an intention for the judgment to be final. Id. at 7. 

Turning to (2), the court noted that a sentence from a PJC must be entered “within a reasonable time” after the conviction, and looked to State v. Marino, 265 N.C. App. 546 (2019) for the considerations applicable to determining whether the sentence was entered in a reasonable time. Slip Op at 8-9. Here, the court noted the circumstances supported a finding of reasonableness, as (1) the State delayed its motion to pray judgment until defendant committed a second motor vehicle offense, (2) defendant tacitly consented to the delay by not objecting to the PJC and not asking for judgment to be entered, and (3) defendant could not show actual prejudice by the delay of entering a sentence. 

Judge Riggs dissented by separate opinion, and would have held that the delay divested the trial court of jurisdiction to enter the sentence. 

In this drug trafficking case, G.S. 15A-1331.2 did not deprive the trial court of jurisdiction to enter judgment after a PJC. The defendant pled guilty pursuant to a plea arrangement that provided for a PJC to allow the defendant to provide testimony in another case. Approximately 19 months later, the State prayed for entry of judgment. After judgment was entered, the defendant unsuccessfully filed a motion for appropriate relief, asserting that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to enter the sentence because G.S. 15A-1331.2 requires the trial court to enter final judgment on certain high-level felonies, such as the one at issue here, within 12 months of the PJC. The court noted that the issue was one of first impression. It noted that the trial court’s judgment unquestionably failed to comply with the statute, which provides that if the trial court enters a PJC for a class D felony, it must include a condition that the State pray for judgment within a specific period of time not to exceed 12 months. Here, the plea agreement contained no such provision and, approximately 19 months after the defendant’s conviction, the State prayed for judgment and judgment was entered. Analyzing the issue as one of legislative intent, the court determined although the PJC failed to comply with the statute, this did not constitute a jurisdictional issue. The court went on to conclude that the trial court’s delay in sentencing the defendant was not unreasonable nor was the defendant prejudiced by it.

When the trial court enters a PJC, there is no final judgment from which to appeal.

The trial court did not err by considering the seriousness of the offense when exercising its discretion to choose a minimum term within the presumptive range.

In calculating the defendant’s prior record level, the trial court erred by assigning an additional point on grounds that all the elements of the present offense were included in a prior offense. The defendant was found guilty of possession of a stolen vehicle. The court rejected the State’s argument that the defendant’s prior convictions for possession of stolen property and larceny of a motor vehicle were sufficient to support the additional point. The court noted that while those offenses are “similar to the present offense” neither contains all of its elements. Specifically, possession of a stolen vehicle requires that the stolen property be a motor vehicle, while possession of stolen property does not; larceny of a motor vehicle requires proof of asportation but not possession while possession of a stolen vehicle requires the reverse.

Following Ford, discussed above, and holding that the trial court properly assigned a prior record level point based on the fact that all elements of the offense at issue−delivery of a controlled substance, cocaine−were included in a prior conviction for delivery of a controlled substance, marijuana. 

The defendant was charged with possession of various drugs found in his bedroom and an adjoining alcove, which he said was his personal space. The defendant shared the house with a number of people, including a woman named Ms. Stepp. The defendant consented to a search of his bedroom and alcove, stating to the officers he did not believe they would find any illegal substances, only drug paraphernalia. When asked whether he had ingested any illegal substances, the defendant admitted having used methamphetamine and prescription pills. The search of the defendant’s bedroom uncovered a white rectangular pill marked G3722, a small bag of marijuana, and drug paraphernalia. The search of the alcove uncovered a metal tin containing methamphetamine, cocaine, heroin, and a small pill similar to the one found in his bedroom. The defendant was charged with and convicted of possession of methamphetamine, heroin, and cocaine and having attained the status of an habitual felon.

Based on the stipulation of counsel to the prior record worksheet, the trial judge found that the defendant had 47 prior convictions and was in prior record level VI. The Court found that the following 32 convictions should not have been counted: convictions used to support habitual felon status in this case; convictions rendered in the same week or session of court other than the one with the highest points; and Class 2 and lower misdemeanor convictions. The Court held that of the 15 remaining convictions, six were out-of-state convictions and were incorrectly classified. Only two should have been counted and then as Class I felonies. The Court held that precedent continues to prohibit the parties from stipulating to the similarity of out-of-state convictions or the resulting North Carolina classification. The Court distinguished State v. Arrington, ___ N.C. ___, 819 S.E.2d 329 (2018), which held that when an offense is split into two separate crimes and the defendant stipulates to the higher offense class, it is assumed that the higher classification is sufficiently supported by the underlying facts of the crime. For out-of-state convictions, in contrast, the parties must establish that the elements of the out-of-state conviction are similar to those of a North Carolina offense; only then may a stipulation determine the underlying facts of the offense and the appropriate classification. Based on this review, the Court found the defendant had 11 convictions that could be used, which placed him in prior record level V. A judge who dissented on a different issue concurred in this part of the opinion but would not have reached the issue because she found that the defendant was entitled to a new trial.

Although the trial court erred by assigning the defendant one point for a misdemeanor breaking and entering conviction when it also assigned two points for a felony possession of a stolen vehicle conviction that occurred on the same date, the error did not increase the defendant’s PRL and thus was harmless.

The trial court erred by including a prior record level point under G.S. 15A-1340.14(b)(7) where the State did not provide the defendant with notice of intent to prove the existence of the point as required by the statute.