STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
v. Halifax County
Nos. 00 CRS 7186
MELVIN EUGENE ROBINSON 01 CRS 2607
Attorney General Roy Cooper, by Special Deputy Attorney
General Gerald K. Robbins, for the State.
Brian Michael Aus for defendant-appellant.
LEVINSON, Judge.
Defendant Melvin Eugene Robinson was charged with felonious
breaking or entering and felonious larceny in 01 CRS 2607 and
felonious breaking or entering in 00 CRS 7186. Defendant
subsequently entered into a plea agreement with the State, wherein
he agreed to plead no contest to all of the charges set forth in
the indictments and receive three Class H active sentences that
would run consecutively to each other. Those sentences would run
concurrently with sentences entered in case numbers 01 CRS 50612-3.
The State agreed to dismiss six other offenses.
On or about 8 November 2001, defendant tendered his plea to
the trial court. After accepting the plea, the trial court, inaccordance with the plea agreement, entered judgments sentencing
defendant to three consecutive terms of 12-15 months imprisonment,
to run concurrently with the sentences in case number 01 CRS 50612.
Petitioner petitioned for and was granted a belated appeal for
limited review of his convictions in 01 CRS 2607 and 00 CRS 7186,
pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 15A-1444(a2).
By his sole assignment of error, defendant argues that the
trial court erred in sentencing him as a prior record level V
offender. This argument is based on the fact that the prior level
record worksheet prepared by the prosecutor denominates defendant's
prior convictions using “CR” instead of “CRS,” i.e., indicating
convictions in the district, instead of the superior court.
Defendant concedes, however, that the Clerk of Court's records
properly reflect the true nature of the convictions. He further
admits that other than this “clerical error” in the worksheet,
“defendant was correctly sentenced as a Level V offender.”
Nonetheless, defendant still requests that this matter be remanded
for correction of the error.
Every clerical error does not require remand for correction.
See State v. Jarman, 140 N.C. App. 198, 201, 535 S.E.2d 875, 878-79
(2000) (providing examples of instances in which our courts have
held clerical errors to be harmless). In this case, the error
occurs on a handwritten worksheet (and not the judgments), which is
utilized in calculating defendant's prior record points. Moreover,
we find it significant that the Clerk of Court's records correctly
delineate the convictions as being felonies and of superior courtorigin (“CRS”). Finally, we fail to discern how the subject error
could prejudice defendant, who concedes that he was otherwise
sentenced properly in each of the judgments as a prior record
level V offender.
Accordingly, we deny defendant's request to remand this matter
for correction of the subject clerical error.
Affirmed.
Chief Judge EAGLES and Judge BRYANT concur.
Report per Rule 30(e).
*** Converted from WordPerfect ***