Appeal by defendant from judgments dated 16 November 2004 by
Judge Robert F. Floyd, Jr., in Robeson County Superior Court.
Heard in the Court of Appeals 27 February 2006.
Attorney General Roy Cooper, by Assistant Attorney General
Kathleen U. Baldwin, for the State.
Appellate Defender Staples Hughes for defendant.
On 7 May 2002, a jury found Harris Emanuel Ford (defendant)
guilty of two counts of first-degree sexual offense and single
counts of first-degree rape, robbery with a dangerous weapon,
first-degree kidnapping, and larceny. On appeal, this Court found
no error at trial and affirmed the convictions. State v. Ford, 162
N.C. App. 722, 592 S.E.2d 294 (2004) (unpublished), cert. denied,
359 N.C. 412, 612 S.E.2d 631 (2005). However, we remanded to the
trial court for re-sentencing on the charges of first-degree rape,
first-degree sexual offense, and robbery with a dangerous weapon,
concluding that the court had relied upon an improper aggravating
factor in these cases. Additionally, because the verdict sheet hadallowed the jury to find defendant guilty of first-degree
kidnapping based upon an act of sexual assault for which he was
separately convicted, we arrest[ed] judgment on the first-degree
kidnapping conviction and remand[ed] to the trial court with
instructions to resentence defendant for second-degree kidnapping.
Defendant appeared before the trial court for resentencing on
16 November 2004, and stipulated to thirteen record points and a
prior record level IV. Mindful of the United States Supreme
Court's decision in Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296, 159 L. Ed.
2d 403 (2004), the court resentenced defendant to the following
presumptive terms of imprisonment: 384 to 470 months for first-
degree rape; 384 to 470 months, consecutive, for each of the two
first-degree sexual offenses; 46 to 65 months, consecutive, for
second-degree kidnapping; and 113 to 145 months for the
consolidated offenses of robbery with a dangerous weapon and
larceny, concurrent with the sentence imposed for kidnapping.
Defendant gave notice of appeal in open court.
Counsel appointed to represent defendant has filed a brief
pursuant to Anders v. California
, 386 U.S. 738, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493
(1967), indicating he is unable to identify an issue with
sufficient merit to support a meaningful argument for relief on
appeal. He asks that this Court conduct its own review of the
record for possible prejudicial error. Counsel has filed
documentation with the Court demonstrating that he complied withthe requirements of Anders
and State v. Kinch
, 314 N.C. 99, 331
S.E.2d 665 (1985), by advising defendant of his right to file
written arguments with the Court and providing him with a copy of
the documents pertinent to his appeal.
Defendant has submitted pro se
arguments to this Court,
his convictions were obtained in violation of his rights
under the Confrontation Clause and the holding in Crawford v.
, 541 U.S. 36, 158 L. Ed. 2d 177 (2004). Defendant
challenges the trial court's admission of the following evidence at
trial: (1) a written statement given to law enforcement by the
victim, Lora Bridges; and (2) statements made by an unknown
declarant to Robeson County Sheriff's Deputy G. T. Campbell.
Defendant's arguments are not properly before this Court on
appeal from his re-sentencing. This Court affirmed defendant's
convictions in his prior appeal. The cause was remanded only for
a new sentencing hearing. 'According to the doctrine of the law
of the case, once an appellate court has ruled on a question, that
decision becomes the law of the case and governs the question both
in subsequent proceedings in a trial court and on subsequent
appeal.' State v. Bullock
, __ N.C. App. __, __, 615 S.E.2d 337,
338 (quoting State v. Boyd
, 148 N.C. App. 304, 308, 559 S.E.2d 1,
3 (2002)), temp. stay granted
, 359 N.C. 854, 618 S.E.2d 733 (2005);
N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-1419(a)(2) (2005). Accordingly,
defendant may not again challenge his convictions in the instant
We note that defendant's claims have no merit. Theintroduction of Bridges' written statement did not violate Crawford
or defendant's Sixth Amendment right to confrontation, inasmuch as
Bridges testified and was subject to cross-examination at trial.
, 541 U.S.
at 59, 158 L. Ed. 2d at 197 (citing
California v. Green
, 399 U.S. 149, 162, 26 L. Ed. 2d 489 (1970)).
The [Confrontation] Clause does not bar admission of a statement
so long as the declarant is present at trial to defend or explain
To the extent defendant challenges Deputy Campbell's
testimony regarding the out-of-court statements of an unknown
declarant, the transcript shows defendant failed to object to this
testimony at trial. See
N.C. R. App. P. 10(b)(1) (2006).
In accordance with Anders
, we have fully examined the record
to determine whether any issues of arguable merit appear therefrom.
Because defendant stipulated to his record level and was re-
sentenced within the applicable presumptive range for his offenses,
we conclude his appeal is without merit.
Chief Judge MARTIN and Judge GEER concur.
Report per Rule 30(e).
*** Converted from WordPerfect ***