State v. Arrington

• Citation: 254 N.C.App. 781,803 S.E.2d 845
• Decision Date: 01 August 2017
• Docket Number: No. COA16-761,COA16-761
• Court: Court of Appeal of North Carolina (US)
• Parties: STATE of North Carolina v. James Edward ARRINGTON

254 N.C.App. 781

803 S.E.2d 845

STATE of North Carolina

v.James Edward ARRINGTON

No. COA16-761

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: August 1, 2017

Attorney General Joshua H. Stein, by Assistant Attorney General Tracy Nayer, for the State.

Appellate Defender Glenn Gerding, by Assistant Appellate Defender James R. Grant, for defendant-appellant.

DAVIS, Judge.

This case requires us to revisit the question of which types of issues may be the subject of a valid stipulation by a defendant in connection with a plea agreement. James Edward Arrington ("Defendant") appeals from his convictions for assault with a deadly weapon inflicting serious injury, felony failure to appear, and attaining the status of a habitual felon. Because we conclude that the trial court improperly accepted Defendant’s stipulation as to an issue of law, we vacate its judgment and remand for further proceedings.

Factual and Procedural Background

On 5 May 2014, Defendant was indicted for assault with a deadly weapon inflicting serious injury and attaining the status of a habitual felon. On 3 November 2014, he was also charged with felony failure to appear in connection with that assault charge. He was subsequently charged on 3 August 2015 with an additional count of attaining the status of a habitual felon.

Defendant and the State entered into a plea agreement whereby it was agreed that (1) he would plead guilty to assault with a deadly weapon inflicting serious injury, felony failure to appear, and attaining the status of a habitual felon; and (2) the State would dismiss the second habitual felon charge. The plea agreement also reflected that Defendant would be sentenced as a habitual felon in the mitigated range and that he "stipulated that he ha[d] 16 points and [was] a Level V for Habitual Felon sentencing purposes."

In connection with this plea agreement, the parties submitted to the trial court a prior record level worksheet for Defendant containing a stipulation as to the existence of six prior convictions generating prior record level points. One of the convictions listed was a second-degree murder conviction from 1994 (the "1994 Conviction"), which was designated in the worksheet as a Class B1 offense. The 1994 Conviction gave rise to 9 of the 16 total prior record level points reflected on the worksheet pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-1340.14(b)(1a).

A plea hearing was held in Buncombe County Superior Court before the Honorable Alan Z. Thornburg on 14 September 2015. During the hearing, Defendant’s counsel stipulated to Defendant’s designation as a Level V offender as stated on the prior record level worksheet. Defendant then pled guilty to assault with a deadly weapon inflicting serious injury, felony failure to appear, and attaining the status of a habitual felon. The second habitual felon charge was dismissed. The trial court consolidated Defendant’s convictions and sentenced him as a habitual felon to 96 to 128 months imprisonment.

Analysis

I. Appellate Jurisdiction

As an initial matter, we must address whether we have jurisdiction over the present appeal. Defendant’s sole argument is that the trial court erred by accepting his plea agreement because it was based upon an invalid stipulation of law that resulted in an incorrect calculation of his prior record level. As a result, Defendant argues, he was improperly sentenced as a Level V offender rather than a Level IV offender. Pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-1444, a defendant who pleads guilty to a criminal offense in superior court is entitled to an appeal as a matter of right regarding the issue of whether the sentence imposed "[r]esult[ed] from an incorrect finding of the defendant’s prior record level...." N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-1444(a2)(1) (2015).

Defendant, however, did not file a notice of appeal that strictly conformed to Rule 4 of the North Carolina Rules of Appellate Procedure. He instead submitted a letter to the Buncombe County Clerk of Court on 21 September 2015 expressing his dissatisfaction with his plea agreement. Because of his failure to comply with Rule 4, Defendant’s appeal is subject to dismissal. However, Defendant has filed a petition for writ of certiorari requesting that we consider his appeal notwithstanding his violation of Rule 4.

Pursuant to Rule 21 of the North Carolina Rules of Appellate Procedure, this Court may, in its discretion, grant a petition for writ of certiorari and review an order or judgment entered by the trial court "when the right to prosecute an appeal has been lost by failure to take timely action[.]" N.C. R. App. P. 21(a)(1). In our discretion, we elect to grant Defendant’s petition for writ of certiorari and reach the merits of his appeal.

II. Validity of Defendant’s Stipulation

Before imposing a sentence for a felony conviction, the trial court must determine the defendant’s prior record level, N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-1340.13(b) (2015), which is calculated by adding together the points assigned to each of the defendant’s qualifying prior convictions, N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-1340.14(a). Points are assessed based upon the classification of the prior offense, and "the classification of a prior offense is the classification assigned to that offense at the time the offense for which the offender is being sentenced is committed [,]" N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-1340.14(c) (emphasis added), rather than at the time the prior offense was committed.

"The State bears the burden of proving, by a preponderance of the evidence, that a prior conviction exists[,]" State v. Alexander , 359 N.C. 824, 827, 616 S.E.2d 914, 917 (2005) (citation and quotation marks omitted), and may—as a general matter—establish the existence of the defendant’s prior convictions through any of the following means:

(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 Department of Public Safety, the Division of Motor Vehicles, or of the Administrative Office of the Courts.

(4) Any other method found by the court to be reliable.

N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-1340.14(f).

While a sentencing worksheet alone is insufficient to satisfy the State’s burden of establishing a defendant’s prior record level, "a sentencing worksheet coupled with statements by counsel may constitute a stipulation by the parties to the prior convictions listed therein." State v. Hinton , 196 N.C.App. 750, 752, 675 S.E.2d 672, 674 (2009). Notably, however, we have held that

[w]hile a stipulation by a defendant is sufficient to prove the existence of the defendant’s prior convictions, which may be used to determine the defendant’s prior record level for sentencing purposes, the trial court’s assignment of defendant’s prior record level is a question of law. Stipulations as to questions of law are generally held invalid and ineffective, and not binding upon the courts, either trial or appellate .

State v. Wingate , 213 N.C.App. 419, 420, 713 S.E.2d 188, 189 (2011) (internal citation and quotation marks omitted and emphasis added). This principle is premised upon the longstanding doctrine in North Carolina that, "[g]enerally, stipulations as to matters of law are not binding upon courts." State v. McLaughlin , 341 N.C. 426, 441, 462 S.E.2d 1, 8 (1995) ; see also Quick v. United Benefit Life Ins. Co. , 287 N.C. 47, 56, 213 S.E.2d 563, 569 (1975) ("[T]he stipulation was one of law and therefore not binding upon the court." (citation omitted)).

Here, Defendant purported to stipulate in his prior record level worksheet and during his plea colloquy both to the existence of several prior convictions, which resulted in the assessment of 16 prior record level points, and to his designation as a Level V offender. See N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-1340.14(c)(5) (providing that defendant with between 14 and 17 prior record level points is a Level V offender). As reflected in his prior record level worksheet, one of the convictions contributing to his total of 16 prior record level points was the 1994 Conviction, which Defendant stipulated was a Class B1 felony.

On appeal, Defendant argues that the calculation of his prior record level was incorrect because the 1994 Conviction should have instead been counted as a Class B2 felony, for which only six prior record level points would have been assessed, see N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-1340.14(b)(2).¹ He contends his stipulation that the 1994 Conviction was a Class B1 felony was invalid because it concerned a legal issue and thus should not have been accepted by the trial court. The State, conversely, argues that Defendant’s stipulation pertained to a factual issue and was therefore valid. For the reasons set out below, we agree with Defendant that the stipulation was invalid.

At the time of Defendant’s 1994 Conviction, North Carolina’s murder statute, N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-17, placed all second-degree murder convictions in the same felony class. See 1981 N.C. Sess. Laws 957, 957, ch. 662, § 1 (designating second-degree murder as Class C felony). However, between 1994 and the date on which the Defendant committed the offenses giving rise to the present appeal, the General Assembly amended this statute by dividing the offense of second-degree murder into two classes—B1 and B2—which were distinguished based upon the type of malice present in the commission of the offense. See N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-17(b) (2015).² Therefore, at the time Defendant committed the offenses from which the current appeal arises, the amended version of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-17, which created two classes of second-degree murder, controlled the classification of the 1994 Conviction for prior record level purposes.

Accordingly, Defendant’s stipulation in connection with his guilty plea went beyond a factual admission that the 1994 Conviction existed. Instead, it constituted a stipulation as to the issue of whether the 1994 Conviction should be treated as a Class B1 or Class B2 felony—a question that required the retroactive application of a distinction in...