State v Richardson, 163 NC App 613 (03-1012) 04/06/2004

Appeal by defendant from judgment entered 14 March 2003 by Judge Evelyn W. Hill in Wake County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 22 March 2004.

Attorney General Roy Cooper, by Assistant Attorney General Stacey A. Phipps, for the State.

Anne Bleyman for defendant-appellant.

MARTIN, Chief Judge.

    Defendant, who was sixteen years old at the time of the incident giving rise to the charge, was charged with assault with a deadly weapon inflicting serious injury. The charge arose from defendant's firing a BB gun through a peephole and hitting his thirteen-year-old victim in the eye, resulting in the victim's loss of sight. Defendant pled guilty and was sentenced to a presumptive term of imprisonment of not less than 29 months nor more than 44 months imprisonment. Defendant appeals.
    On appeal, defendant argues that the trial court abused its discretion in determining his sentence. Specifically, defendant contends that the trial court improperly considered matters outsideof the scope of the proceedings in sentencing him. Defendant directs this Court's attention to some twelve pages of the stenographic transcript in which the trial judge lectured him, concluding with the following statement: “I'm going to order that if work release is recommended, and I'm not recommending it, but if it were recommended, then he is to make restitution of no less than $10,000 to the victims in this case, and the State will prepare the appropriate restitution sheet.” The judgment, however, makes no provision for restitution.
    Defendant, having pled guilty and having been sentenced within the presumptive range of sentences, is limited to review of those issues specified in G.S. 15A-1444. See N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A- 1444(a1),(a2)(2003)(providing that a defendant who pleads guilty and is sentenced in the presumptive range may only appeal as a matter of right sentencing issues, i.e, whether his prior record level was properly calculated and whether the sentence was that authorized by G.S. 15A-1340.17 or 15A-1340.23). Defendant has not presented any issues as to the calculation of his prior record level, and the record shows that his sentence was in accordance with the sentencing grid of 15A-1340.17. Moreover, while G.S. 15A- 1444(e) might appear to suggest otherwise, a writ of certiorari is not available here to review any of the issues presented by defendant. See State v. Pimental, 153 N.C. App. 69, 568 S.E.2d 867 (holding that where a defendant has not failed to take timely action, is not attempting to appeal from an interlocutory order, and is not seeking review from an order of the trial court denyinga motion for appropriate relief, the appellate court does not have the authority to issue a writ of certiorari), disc. review denied, 356 N.C. 442, 573 S.E.2d 163 (2002). Plain error review is similarly foreclosed. See State v. Rasmussen, 158 N.C. App. 544, 556, 582 S.E.2d 44, 53 (stating that plain error review is limited to jury instructions and evidentiary matters), disc. review denied, 357 N.C. 581, 589 S.E.2d 362 (2003).     Accordingly, we summarily affirm the judgment of the trial court.
    Affirmed.
    Judges McGEE and BRYANT concur.
    Report per Rule 30(e).

*** Converted from WordPerfect ***