How to access the above link?
Return to nccourts.org
Return to the Opinions Page
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
v
.
Beaufort County
Nos. 02 CRS 1664 and 50925
KENNETH EARL PRITCHARD
Attorney General Roy Cooper, by Associate Attorney General
LaToya B. Powell, for the State.
Geoffrey W. Hosford for Defendant.
McGEE, Judge.
Kenneth Earl Pritchard (Defendant) entered a plea of guilty to
second-degree murder and assault with a deadly weapon with intent
to kill. Superior Court Judge Jack W. Jenkins entered judgment on
27 October 2003 and sentenced Defendant to a term of 196 months to
245 months in prison for second-degree murder and to a consecutive
term of 31 months to 47 months in prison for the assault charge.
Defendant appealed, and in State v. Pritchard, 172 N.C. App. 174,
616 S.E.2d 28 (2005) (unpublished), our Court found error in the
determination of aggravating factors and remanded the case for re-
sentencing.
Defendant was re-sentenced on 8 June 2006 by Superior Court
Judge William C. Griffin to a term of 189 months to 236 months inprison for second-degree murder and to a consecutive term of 29
months to 44 months in prison for the assault charge. Between
Defendant's sentencing on 27 October 2003 and his re-sentencing on
8 June 2006, Defendant was convicted of another offense on 28 March
2005. As a result of the 28 March 2005 conviction, the trial court
determined that Defendant had a prior record level of II at re-
sentencing, rather than a record level of I, as he had at the time
of his original sentencing on 27 October 2003.
Defendant argues the trial court erred by including his 28
March 2005 conviction in the determination of his prior record
level because that conviction did not exist at the time Defendant
was originally sentenced. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-1340.14(a) (2005)
provides:
The prior record level of a felony offender is
determined by calculating the sum of the
points assigned to each of the offender's
prior convictions that the court, or with
respect to subdivision (b)(7) of this section,
the jury, finds to have been proved in
accordance with this section.
N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-1340.11(7) (2005) states: "Prior conviction._
A person has a prior conviction when, on the date a criminal
judgment is entered, the person being sentenced has been previously
convicted of a crime[.]"
Our Court previously decided the precise issue presented in
the present case in State v. Borders, 171 N.C. App. 363, 615 S.E.2d
96 (2005) (unpublished). Although we are not bound by a prior
unpublished decision, see United Services Automobile Assn. v.
Simpson, 126 N.C. App. 393, 396, 485 S.E.2d 337, 339, disc. review denied, 347 N.C. 141, 492 S.E.2d 37 (1997) (holding that this Court
is not bound by a prior unpublished decision of another panel of
this Court), we find the reasoning of Borders instructive. In
Borders, we held that "[a]ccording to [N.C.G.S. § 15A-1340.11(7)],
a person has a prior conviction if he has the conviction as of the
time he is being sentenced." Therefore, our Court held that
because the defendant in Borders had the conviction at the time he
was re-sentenced, the trial court properly considered the
conviction in determining the defendant's prior record level.
In support of the holding in Borders, our Court also relied
upon State v. Mixion, 118 N.C. App. 559, 455 S.E.2d 904 (1995),
which interpreted similar provisions of the Fair Sentencing Act.
In Mixion, the defendant was convicted and sentenced on 5 April
1991. Id. at 561, 455 S.E.2d at 905. The defendant appealed and
our Court affirmed the conviction, but remanded the case for re-
sentencing. Id. Between the time of the defendant's original
sentencing and his re-sentencing hearing, the defendant was
convicted of another offense. Id. at 562, 455 S.E.2d at 905.
Based upon this offense, the trial court, at the defendant's re-
sentencing hearing, found the aggravating factor of a prior
conviction. Id. Our Court held that "at the time of resentencing,
[the] defendant had a prior conviction[]" and, therefore, the trial
court properly found this prior conviction as an aggravating
factor. Id. at 563-64, 455 S.E.2d at 906. In a parenthetical, our
Court noted:
Our holding is buttressed by the newly enacted
[N.C. Gen. Stat.] § 15A-1340.11(7) (Cum. Supp.1994), applicable to offenses occurring on or
after 1 October 1994, which states "[a] person
has a prior conviction when, on the date a
criminal judgment is entered, the person being
sentenced has been previously convicted of a
crime[.]"
Id. at 563, 455 S.E.2d at 906.
In support of his argument, Defendant relies upon N.C. Gen.
Stat. § 15A-1331(b), which provides: "For the purpose of imposing
sentence, a person has been convicted when he has been adjudged
guilty or has entered a plea of guilty or no contest." N.C. Gen.
Stat. § 15A-1331(b) (2005). However, this statute speaks only to
the issue of when a person is deemed to have a conviction. Our
Court has "'interpreted N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-1331(b) to mean that
formal entry of judgment is not required in order to have a
conviction.'" State v. Canellas, 164 N.C. App. 775, 778, 596
S.E.2d 889, 891 (2004) (quoting State v. Hatcher, 136 N.C. App.
524, 527, 524 S.E.2d 815, 817 (2000)). In other words, a person
has a conviction immediately upon being found guilty by a jury, see
State v. Fuller, 48 N.C. App. 418, 420, 268 S.E.2d 879, 881, disc.
review denied, 301 N.C. 403, 273 S.E.2d 448 (1980), or upon
pleading guilty or no contest. See Hatcher, 136 N.C. App. at 527,
524 S.E.2d at 817. In contrast, N.C.G.S. § 15A-1340.11(7)
specifies the point at which a conviction qualifies as a "prior
conviction." Under N.C.G.S. § 15A-1340.11(7), a person has a prior
conviction if the person has that conviction, as determined by
N.C.G.S. § 15A-1331(b), on the date a judgment is entered. In the
present case, judgment was entered against Defendant at his re-
sentencing on 8 June 2006. At that point in time, Defendant hadpreviously been convicted of another offense on 28 March 2005.
For the reasons stated above, we hold that for purposes of
calculating a defendant's prior record level at re-sentencing, a
trial court may consider a defendant's conviction that was entered
after the defendant's original sentencing, but prior to the
defendant's re-sentencing. Therefore, the trial court did not err
by considering Defendant's 28 March 2005 conviction in its
determination of Defendant's prior record level at re-sentencing.
We overrule this assignment of error. Defendant failed to set
forth argument pertaining to his remaining assignment of error and
we deem it abandoned. See N.C.R. App. P. 28(b)(6).
Affirmed.
Judges STEPHENS and SMITH concur.
*** Converted from WordPerfect ***