STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
v. Guilford County
No. 99 CRS 066743
ZACKERY DAVID GRIMES
Attorney General Roy Cooper, by Assistant Attorney General
Robert C. Montgomery, for the State
Clifford Clendenin O'Hale & Jones, LLP, by Walter L. Jones,
for defendant-appellant.
BIGGS, Judge.
Zackery David Grimes (defendant) was indicted on 13 December
1999 for murder. On 3 January 2000, defendant was indicted for
felonious breaking and entering and felonious larceny. On 24
January 2000, defendant was indicted for robbery with a dangerous
weapon. On 21 August 2000, defendant was indicted on charges of
first degree burglary, first degree kidnapping, robbery with a
dangerous weapon, and conspiracy to commit robbery with a dangerous
weapon.
On 23 December 1999, defendant entered into an agreement with
the State in which he stipulated to certain facts regarding the
alleged crimes and agreed to provide information to the State in anongoing criminal investigation. In return, the State agreed that
defendant would:
receive consecutive sentences totaling 360
months minimum, 438 months maximum, that he
not be prosecuted for First Degree Murder and
that the State of North Carolina will not seek
the death penalty in this case. . . .
Further, the State of North Carolina will
agree to consider giving the Defendant further
consideration if he cooperates fully and his
cooperation leads to physical evidence. . . .
The decision of whether the Defendant is
entitled to further consideration shall be
solely in the discretion of the District
Attorney's Office and in no event will result
in sentences less than 300 months minimum, 378
months maximum.
Pursuant to the agreement, defendant provided information to the
State regarding the location of the murder weapon. Defendant had
learned that the knife used in the murder could be found in a box
in the crawlspace of Robert Reid's parent's home. However,
defendant was told that the State would not be able to search the
house and find the knife.
Sometime thereafter, defendant was contacted and asked to come
to the District Attorney's office because they believed they had
found the knife and wanted defendant to identify it. Defendant
described the knife in detail, after which the State showed him the
knife and he positively identified it. Apparently, the State
already had the knife in their possession before the 23 December
1999 agreement. Accordingly, the State declined to agree to a
reduction of defendant's sentence per the terms of the agreement.
The State argued that because the knife was already in their
possession, defendant could not lead them to it, and thus the State“[did] not choose to give him credit for that physical evidence
because it was not seized pursuant to his efforts. . . .”
On 10 October 2000, defendant pled guilty pursuant to a plea
agreement to charges of second degree murder, conspiracy to commit
first degree murder, breaking or entering, larceny after breaking
or entering, two counts of robbery with a dangerous weapon, first
degree burglary, first degree kidnapping, and conspiracy to commit
robbery with a dangerous weapon. Pursuant to the plea agreement,
defendant was sentenced to 180 to 225 months imprisonment on the
murder charge. Additionally, the remaining charges were
consolidated for judgment and defendant was sentenced to a
consecutive term of 180 to 225 months imprisonment. However, the
prosecutor declined to recommend a reduction in sentence as
outlined in the 23 December 1999 agreement. Defendant appeals.
Defendant's sole argument on appeal is that the trial court
erred by refusing to require that the State honor the terms of the
plea agreement. Specifically, defendant argues that he provided
information to the State regarding the location of the knife, and
thus was entitled to a reduction in his sentence as per the terms
of the agreement. Defendant argues that the information he gave
was accurate, and that the State did not know that the knife it had
in its possession was the murder weapon until defendant confirmed
it.
We note initially that the State has filed a motion to dismiss
defendant's appeal, asserting that, pursuant to N.C.G.S. §
15A-1444 (2001), defendant has no statutory right of appeal. Defendant responds and petitions the Court for writ of certiorari
in the alternative.
After careful review of the record, we dismiss the appeal.
Defendant pled guilty, was sentenced in the presumptive range, and
does not raise an issue as to the calculation of his prior record
level. Thus, defendant is not entitled to appellate review of his
conviction. N.C.G.S. § 15A-1444(a1) and (a2).
Additionally, we decline to review defendant's appeal on a
petition for writ of certiorari. The decision whether to recommend
a reduced sentence for defendant was left solely in the discretion
of the prosecutor. The prosecutor determined in its discretion
that the information provided by defendant did not warrant a
reduced sentence. Accordingly, we find defendant's arguments to be
wholly without merit.
Appeal dismissed; petition for writ of certiorari denied.
Judges WALKER and THOMAS concur.
Report per Rule 30(e).
*** Converted from WordPerfect ***