Appeal by defendant from judgment entered 28 June 2000 by
Judge Orlando F. Hudson, Jr., in Durham County Superior Court.
Heard in the Court of Appeals 17 March 2004.
Attorney General Roy Cooper, by Special Attorney General
Elizabeth Leonard McKay, for the State.
Kevin P. Bradley for defendant-appellant.
MARTIN, Chief Judge.
In 1997, defendant and Adrian Bruce Howard were convicted of
multiple felony offenses arising out of a home invasion which
occurred on 13 June 1996 in Durham County. Defendant and Howard
appealed their convictions and, by opinion filed 15 June 1999, this
Court found error and granted a new trial. State v. Howard & State
v. Lee, 133 N.C. App. 614, 515 S.E.2d 740 (1999). Upon remand,
defendant entered pleas of guilty to second degree kidnaping, first
degree burglary, two counts of second degree sexual offense, and
two counts of assault with a deadly weapon inflicting serious
injury. The pleas were entered pursuant to a plea arrangement
which provided for the reduction of three charges, dismissal of two
other felony charges arising out of the same incident, andconsolidation of the charges to which defendant was pleading guilty
into one judgment, resulting in defendant receiving a minimum
sentence of 121 months. The trial court determined defendant's
prior record points to be eighteen and that he had a prior record
level of V. The trial court entered a judgment in which it
consolidated the offenses and sentenced defendant to imprisonment
for a minimum term of 121 months and a maximum term of 155 months,
within the presumptive range of sentences for one having a prior
record level of V.
On 9 April 2002, defendant filed a petition for writ of
certiorari; by order dated 24 April 2002, this Court allowed the
petition for the purpose of reviewing the prior record level
determination made by the trial court in its 28 June 2002 judgment.
Having done so, we find no reason to disturb the judgment and
affirm.
N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-1340.14(f) (2003) provides that “[t]he
State bears the burden of proving, by a preponderance of the
evidence, that a prior conviction exists and that the offender
before the court is the same person as the offender named in the
prior conviction.” A defendant's prior convictions may be proved
by:
(1) Stipulation of the parties.
(2) An original or copy of the court record of the
prior conviction.
(3) A copy of records maintained by the Division
of Criminal Information, the Division of Motor
Vehicles, or of the Administrative Office ofthe Courts.
(4) Any other method found by the court to be
reliable.
Id.
Included in the record, and marked as a State's exhibit, is a
printout by the Division of Criminal Information (“DCI”) listing
prior convictions of Donald Earl Lee, Donnie Coats Lee and Donald
Howard. Alias names of Donald E. Lee, Earl Lee, Donnie Coats Lee,
Donal E. Lee, Coats Lee and Donnie Lee are listed as well as two
social security numbers used by the defendant. The printout also
contains a detailed description of the defendant including his
fingerprint identifier number and scar and tattoo locations. The
same FBI number and SID number is listed for both Donald Earl Lee
and Donnie Coats Lee.
The DCI computerized record is a proper
method to prove defendant's prior convictions under N.C. Gen. Stat.
§ 15A-1340.14(f)(3).
State v. Rich, 130 N.C. App. 113, 116, 502
S.E.2d 49, 51 (1998). By introducing the DCI record showing Donald
Earl Lee and Donnie Coats Lee with the same identification numbers,
the State carried its burden of proving that Donald Earl Lee was
the same person as the defendant.
While it is unclear from the record whether Donald Howard is
another alias of the defendant, only one prior record point, for a
misdemeanor, was attributed to the defendant under this name.
Prior convictions for Donald Earl Lee and Donald Coats Lee on the
DCI printout account for sixteen prior record level points,
sufficient for Level V status. An additional point was added to
the record for commission of an offense while on probation. Thus,even assuming
arguendo that Donald Howard is not the same person as
defendant, subtraction of the one point attributed to him under
that name would not affect the prior record level finding of Level
V.
No error.
Judges HUDSON and GEER concur.
Report per Rule 30(e).
*** Converted from WordPerfect ***