State Carolina v. Burgess

Decision Date20 September 2011
Docket NumberNo. COA11–193.,COA11–193.
CourtNorth Carolina Court of Appeals
PartiesSTATE of North Carolinav.Stanley Brian BURGESS.

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Appeal by defendant from judgment entered 28 January 2010 by Judge Edgar B. Gregory in Yadkin County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 29 August 2011.

Roy Cooper, Attorney General, by Lisa G. Corbett, Assistant Attorney General, for the State.

Staples Hughes, Appellate Defender, by Kathleen M. Joyce, Assistant Appellate Defender, for defendant-appellant.

MARTIN, Chief Judge.

The record indicates defendant was charged with first-degree rape, two counts of first-degree sex offense, first-degree kidnapping, assault on a female, and communicating threats. He entered pleas of not guilty and a jury was empaneled to hear the case. Following a recess on the third day of trial, defendant entered a plea of no contest to second-degree kidnapping, a Class E felony, and crime against nature, a Class I felony, and pursuant to the plea agreement, the trial court dismissed the remaining charges.

The plea agreement provided that the State would stipulate to the mitigating factor [t]hat the defendant has been a good inmate” and that “upon the defendant's pleas of no contest to 2nd degree kidnapping and crime against nature the charges will be consolidated and defendant sentenced in mitigated range of 36 [months] to 53 months (as a record level 4). 1 (Emphasis added.) The State's prior record level worksheet listed defendant's prior record level as IV based on 12 prior record level points from three Class H or I felonies and six Class A1 or 1 misdemeanors. Consistent with the plea agreement, the trial court sentenced defendant to a minimum term of 36 months and a maximum term of 53 months in the custody of the North Carolina Department of Correction.

The trial court also found that defendant had been convicted of a “reportable conviction” under N.C.G.S. § 14–208.6, specifically, “a sexually violent offense under G.S. 14–208.6(5),” and ordered that defendant, upon his release from imprisonment, register as a sex offender under Part 2 of Article 27A of Chapter 14 of the General Statutes, for a period of 30 years.

After failing to give notice of appeal, defendant filed a Petition for Writ of Certiorari in this Court. This Court granted review.

_________________________

On appeal, defendant contends, and the State concedes, the trial court erred by ordering that defendant register as a sex offender.2 We agree, and therefore vacate the trial court's order.

During sentencing, the trial court found that defendant “has been convicted of a reportable conviction under G.S. 14–208.6.” The basis the trial court indicated for its finding was defendant's conviction of “a sexually violent offense under G.S. 14–208.6(5) or an attempt, solicitation, or conspiracy to commit such offense (other than an offense under G.S. 14–27.2A or G.S. 14–27.4A).” However, neither of the offenses for which defendant was convicted—second-degree kidnapping and crime against nature—is a “sexually violent offense” under N.C.G.S. § 14–208.6(5). See N.C. Gen.Stat. § 14–208.6(5) (2009) (listing offenses deemed “sexually violent”). The trial court therefore erred by finding that defendant had been convicted of a “reportable conviction,” and we vacate its order that defendant register as a sex offender upon his release from imprisonment.

Defendant also contends the trial court erred by sentencing him as a level IV offender.3 We agree with this contention as well and remand for resentencing.

“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 ... finds to have been proved in accordance with this section.” N.C. Gen.Stat. § 15A–1340.14(a) (2009). The number of prior record points for each class of felony and misdemeanor offense is specified in N.C.G.S. § 15A–1340.14(b). The State bears the burden of proving, by a preponderance of the evidence, that a prior conviction exists and that the offender before the court is the same person as the offender named in the prior conviction.” N.C. Gen.Stat. § 15A–1340.14(f). A prior conviction shall be proved by stipulation of the parties, an original or copy of the court record of the prior conviction, a copy of records maintained by the Division of Criminal Information, the Division of Motor Vehicles, or of the Administrative Office of the Courts, or any other method found by the court to be reliable. Id. N.C.G.S. § 15A–1340.14(e) governs classification of offenses from other jurisdictions and provides that,

[e]xcept as otherwise provided in this subsection, a conviction occurring in a jurisdiction other than North Carolina is classified as a Class I felony if the jurisdiction in which the offense occurred classifies the offense as a felony, or is classified as a Class 3 misdemeanor if the jurisdiction in which the offense occurred classifies the offense as a misdemeanor. If the offender proves by the preponderance of the evidence that an offense classified as a felony in the other jurisdiction is substantially similar to an offense that is a misdemeanor in North Carolina, the conviction is treated as that class of misdemeanor for assigning prior record level points. If the State proves by the preponderance of the evidence that an offense classified as either a misdemeanor or a felony in the other jurisdiction is substantially similar to an offense in North Carolina that is classified as a Class I felony or higher, the conviction is treated as that class of felony for assigning prior record level points. If the State proves by the preponderance of the evidence that an offense classified as a misdemeanor in the other jurisdiction is substantially similar to an offense classified as a Class A1 or Class 1 misdemeanor in North Carolina, the conviction is treated as a Class A1 or Class 1 misdemeanor for assigning prior record level points. N.C. Gen.Stat. § 15A–1340.14(e). Whether an out-of-state offense is substantially similar to a North Carolina offense is a question of law involving comparison of the elements of the out-of-state offense to those of the North Carolina offense. State v. Hanton, 175 N.C.App. 250, 254, 623 S.E.2d 600, 604 (2006).

In this case, the State's prior record level worksheet indicates that, at the time of sentencing, defendant had fifteen prior convictions, which were from Florida, South Carolina, and Georgia. Defendant's counsel stipulated to the existence of the convictions by signing Section III of the worksheet. See N.C. Gen.Stat. § 15A–1340.14(f). However, defendant contends, and we agree, the State failed to present sufficient evidence to establish the out-of-state offenses were substantially similar to North Carolina offenses.

Although the State presented the trial court with Exhibit 3, printed copies of out-of-state statutes purportedly serving as the basis for the nine out-of-state convictions the State used in computing defendant's prior record level, the “out-of-state crimes [on the State's worksheet] were not identified by statutes,” but “only by brief and non-specific descriptions” and “could arguably describe more than one specific South Carolina and [Florida] crime,” which makes it unclear whether those statutes were the basis for defendant's convictions. See State v. Henderson, 201 N.C.App. 381, 388, 689 S.E.2d 462, 467 (2009) (declining to determine on appeal whether out-of-state offenses were substantially similar to North Carolina offenses because, although the State's brief identified out-of-state statutes under which it contended the defendant had been convicted, the record did not identify the crimes by statute and therefore provided the Court with insufficient information for such a determination). Furthermore, while the State's worksheet indicates defendant's South Carolina conviction for “Poss of Xanax” was from 1993 and his South Carolina convictions for “MFG/Poss other Sch I, II, III with intent,” “Poss of Marijuana W/I to Distribute,” (M) Poss of Sch I–V 1st Offense,” “Open Cont, Simple Poss of Marij, Poss...

To continue reading

Request your trial
18 cases
  • State v. Costello
    • United States
    • West Virginia Supreme Court
    • 2 Abril 2021
    ...That determination is a question of law, not fact, and thus was not required to be presented to the jury."); State v. Burgess , 216 N.C.App. 54, 56, 715 S.E.2d 867, 870 (2011) ("Whether an out-of-state offense is substantially similar to a North Carolina offense is a question of law involvi......
  • Meredith v. Stein
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of North Carolina
    • 6 Noviembre 2018
    ...trial judges must also determine "substantial similarity" for purposes of calculating prior offense history. State v. Burgess , 216 N.C.App. 54, 715 S.E.2d 867, 871 (2011). Further, North Carolina is not the first state to vest the power to make substantial similarity determinations in sher......
  • State v. Weldon
    • United States
    • North Carolina Court of Appeals
    • 20 Febrero 2018
    ...of [the] respective elements" of the two offenses. Riley , ––– N.C. App. at ––––, 802 S.E.2d at 498 (citing State v. Burgess , 216 N.C. App. 54, 57, 715 S.E.2d 867, 870 (2011) ). Accordingly, we conclude that a finding that an out-of-state offense is substantially similar to a North Carolin......
  • State v. Glover
    • United States
    • North Carolina Court of Appeals
    • 3 Septiembre 2019
    ..., ––– N.C. ––––, ––––, 821 S.E.2d 402, 406 (2018) (quoting N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-1446(d)(18) (2017) ).2 State v. Burgess , 216 N.C. App. 54, 59, 715 S.E.2d 867, 871 (2011) ("This Court has repeatedly held a defendant's stipulation to the substantial similarity of offenses from another juris......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT