State v. Robinson
| Decision Date | 06 May 2022 |
| Docket Number | 533A20 |
| Citation | 381 N.C. 207,872 S.E.2d 28 |
| Parties | STATE of North Carolina v. Lewie P. ROBINSON |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
Joshua Stein, Attorney General, by Jessica Macari, Assistant Attorney General for the State.
Dylan J.C. Buffum, for defendant.
¶ 1 In State v. Dew , this Court determined that "the State may charge a defendant with multiple counts of assault only when there is substantial evidence that a distinct interruption occurred between assaults." 379 N.C. 64, 2021-NCSC-124, ¶ 27, 864 S.E.2d 268. Here, we must apply that principle to the context of a guilty plea, in which the trial court sentenced defendant to separate and consecutive sentences based on several assault charges arising from one assaultive episode. Because the facts presented at the plea hearing did not establish that a distinct interruption occurred between assaults, we affirm the decision of the Court of Appeals that the trial court lacked a sufficient factual basis to accept defendant's guilty plea. Because we see no basis for rejecting defendant's guilty plea in part, however, we modify the holding of the Court of Appeals by vacating the entire plea arrangement and remanding to the trial court for further proceedings.
¶ 2 In May 2018, defendant and Leslie Wilson were in a dating relationship in which Wilson became the victim of defendant's domestic violence. On or around the evening of 27 to 28 May 2018, Wilson and defendant were at Wilson's home together when defendant attacked her. Specifically, defendant grabbed Wilson around the neck, punched her several times in the face and chest, and strangled her while holding her down on a bed. When law enforcement arrived, Wilson stated that defendant had held her captive for three days. Wilson sustained severe injuries to her jaw, neck, and chest from the attack, requiring extensive medical treatment. On 4 December 2018, defendant was formally charged with four offenses: assault on a female, violation of a domestic violence protective order (DVPO), assault inflicting serious bodily injury, and assault by strangulation.
¶ 3 On 5 December 2018, defendant's case came on for hearing in Buncombe County Superior Court. Through his appointed counsel, defendant agreed to plead guilty to each of the four charged offenses. Under the terms of this original plea agreement, the State agreed to consolidate the four offenses into one Class F Felony judgment, with defendant receiving a single active prison sentence of 23–37 months. In establishing the factual basis for defendant's plea, the State described the facts surrounding the charges as follows:
¶ 4 After defendant's counsel agreed with this factual presentation by the State, the trial court requested to hear directly from Wilson, who was present at the hearing. In response to the trial court asking her to describe the incident, Wilson stated as follows:
We were both drinking and he was getting ill, so I dumped all the beer out. Dumped out everything I could find. And then I locked myself in the bathroom. And he broke two doors trying to get to me and he kept telling me to tell him where I had hid the beer. I didn't want to tell him then that I'd poured it out because I was so afraid. But I poured it out, trying to keep him from getting to this point. And then he got after me and I had a box cutter, which I was trying to defend myself at that point, and he held me down on the bed. I actually blacked out twice. And when he was strangling me and told me I needed to learn where the pressure points was, with his elbow on my jawbone and my throat. And then when I got back up I did—I had the box cutter but I was trying—I was scared to death. I thought he was going to kill me. I couldn't even hardly talk.
When the trial court subsequently asked Wilson whether she understood the terms of defendant's plea and why the court should accept the plea, Wilson responded affirmatively and stated she "just want[ed] to close this chapter of [her] life and move on."
¶ 5 Ultimately, addressing defendant's counsel, the trial court stated the following:
So I'm telling you this, [defense counsel], I'm rejecting the plea the way it is now. I will sentence [defendant] to four consecutive sentences for active time, if you want to renegotiate your plea arrangement. Otherwise, I'll sign off on it, won't take it, and you can take it in front of another judge and see if you can sell this bill of goods to some other person. I'm not going to take it.
The court then took a brief recess to allow the parties to reconvene.
¶ 6 Twenty-four minutes later, the parties returned with a new plea arrangement. Under the new plea arrangement, defendant pleaded guilty to the same four charges as in the original plea arrangement: one count of assault on a female, one count of DVPO violation, one count of assault inflicting serious bodily injury, and one count of assault by strangulation. However, where the original plea agreement consolidated the four offenses into one sentence, the new plea arrangement offered four separate sentences: one Class F felony judgment with an active sentence of 23–37 months; one Class H felony judgment with a consecutive active sentence of 15–27 months; and two consecutive A1 misdemeanor judgments of two 150-day suspended sentences with supervised probation. Notably, the trial court did not solicit further factual statements to support the new plea arrangement; instead, it relied solely on the previous statements from the prosecutor and Wilson. After defendant duly agreed to the plea arrangement, the trial court accepted it and entered judgment accordingly.
¶ 7 On 5 August 2019, defendant filed a petition for writ of certiorari with the North Carolina Court of Appeals pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 15A-1444. Although defendant's petition requested appellate review of four issues, the Court of Appeals, in its discretion, allowed defendant's petition on only one of these issues: whether the trial court had a sufficient factual basis to accept the new plea arrangement and enter separate and consecutive judgments accordingly. Specifically, defendant argued that the trial court erred when it accepted the new plea arrangement and entered judgment on three assault charges because the factual summary provided by the State and Wilson did not establish more than one assault.
¶ 8 On 15 December 2020, the Court of Appeals filed a divided opinion in which the majority concluded that "there was an insufficient factual basis for [d]efendant's guilty plea." Robinson , 275 N.C. App. at 331, 852 S.E.2d 915.
¶ 9 First, the majority noted that by statute, a "judge may not accept a plea of guilty ... without first determining that there is a factual basis for the plea." N.C.G.S. § 15A-1022(c) (2021). The court observed that such a factual basis may be provided by a statement of facts by the prosecutor, and that a "trial court may also ‘consider any information properly brought to its attention in determining whether there is a factual basis for a plea of guilty.’ " Id. at 334, 852 S.E.2d 915 (quoting State v. Dickens , 299 N.C. 76, 79, 261 S.E.2d 183 (1980) (cleaned up)). Further, relying on its own precedent in State v. Williams ,1 the majority noted that Robinson , 275 N.C. App. at 335, 852 S.E.2d 915 (quoting State v. Williams , 201 N.C. App. 161, 182, 689 S.E.2d 412 (2009) ).
¶ 10 Here, the Court of Appeals majority noted, "the State's summary of the factual basis for the plea was brief" and "indicated that this was a singular assault, without distinct interruption, during which Wilson was strangled, beaten, and cut." Robinson , 275 N.C. App. at 334–35, 852 S.E.2d 915. The majority observed that "nothing in the State's factual summary suggests that there was a distinct interruption that would support multiple assault convictions." Id. at 335, 852 S.E.2d 915. Instead, "the prosecutor's language shows that she only referenced a singular assault during her summary of the factual basis for the plea arrangement," using singular language such as "the assault" or "the altercation." Id. "Moreover," the majority noted, "Wilson's statement to the trial court at the hearing provided no evidence of a distinct interruption in the assault." Id. Finally, the majority stated that "[t]he fact that [d]efendant held Wilson captive for three days does not, alone, compel the conclusion that he committed multiple assaults against Wilson during that period." Id. at 336, 852 S.E.2d 915. Given this lack of substantial evidence of a distinct interruption in the assault, the Court of Appeals majority concluded "that [d]efendant has shown than the State did not...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Teal
... ... notwithstanding his failure to object at trial." ... State v. Jamison, 234 N.C.App. 231, 237, 758 S.E.2d ... 666, 671 (2014) ... "Issues ... of statutory construction are questions of law, reviewed de ... novo on appeal." State v. Robinson, 275 ... N.C.App. 330, 333, 852 S.E.2d 915, 918 (2020) (citation ... omitted), aff'd as modified, 381 N.C. 207, 872 ... S.E.2d 28 (2022). Under de novo review, "the court ... considers the matter anew and freely substitutes its own ... judgment for that of the lower ... ...