State v. Speight

• Decision Date: 01 July 2005
• Docket Number: No. 491PA04.,491PA04.
• Citation: 614 S.E.2d 262
• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court
• Parties: STATE of North Carolina v. Timmy Wayne SPEIGHT.

Page 262

614 S.E.2d 262

STATE of North Carolina v. Timmy Wayne SPEIGHT.

No. 491PA04.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

July 1, 2005.

On discretionary review pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 7A-31 of a unanimous decision of the Court of Appeals, 166 N.C.App. 106, 602 S.E.2d 4 (2004), finding no prejudicial error in trial but remanding for resentencing after consideration of defendant's motion for appropriate relief from judgments entered on 30 August 2002 by Judge W. Russell Duke, Jr. in Superior Court, Pitt County. On 25

January 2005, defendant filed a second motion for appropriate relief in this Court. Heard in the Supreme Court 15 March 2005.

Roy Cooper, Attorney General, by Robert C. Montgomery and Patricia A. Duffy, Assistant Attorneys General, for the State-appellant.

Margaret Creasy Ciardella, Hampstead, for defendant-appellee.

WAINWRIGHT, Justice.

Defendant Timmy Wayne Speight's convictions and sentences stem from a car crash which occurred early in the evening of 6 June 2001 in Greenville, North Carolina. Defendant was driving a red Camaro automobile northbound on Highway 11. Several witnesses stated that he was quickly changing lanes and driving erratically. At one point, defendant swerved to the left lane to avoid hitting a car in front of him. As he swerved, he lost control of his car, slid across the northbound left lane, crossed a grass median, hit a pole, and collided with a white Buick automobile which was headed south on the highway. Defendant hit the Buick with such force that the automobile flipped over. When emergency medical service (EMS) technicians arrived, they determined that Lynwood Thomas and Donald Ray Thomas, both people in the Buick, were dead. The EMS technicians found defendant injured and trapped in his Camaro. An EMS technician and an investigating police officer smelled alcohol when they looked in the Camaro. Analysis of defendant's blood samples revealed that his blood alcohol level was .13 at the time of the car crash.

Defendant was arrested on 5 July 2001 and indicted on 18 February 2002 for two counts of second-degree murder and one count of driving while impaired.¹ Defendant was tried before a jury during the 26 August 2002 Criminal Session of Pitt County Superior Court. On 30 August 2002, the jury found defendant guilty of two counts of involuntary manslaughter and one count of driving while impaired.

During the sentencing proceeding, the trial court calculated that defendant had a prior record level I for both manslaughter convictions and found the following statutory aggravating factor for both of those convictions: "The defendant knowingly created a great risk of death to more than one person by means of a weapon or device which would normally be hazardous to the lives of more than one person." The trial court also found that the following non-statutory aggravating factor applied to both manslaughter convictions: the defendant killed another person in the course of his conduct. The trial court found the following mitigating factors for both manslaughter convictions: "The defendant has a support system in the community"; and "The defendant has a positive employment history or is gainfully employed." The trial court determined that defendant should receive a Level Two punishment for the impaired driving offense. Pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 20-179(c), the trial court found the following grossly aggravating factor for that offense: The defendant "caused, by [his] impaired driving at the time of the current offense, serious injury to another person." Additionally, pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 20-179(d), the trial court found that the following factor aggravated the seriousness of the impaired driving offense: "The defendant used a motor vehicle in the commission of a felony that led to the death of two people." The trial court found that the aggravating factors outweighed the mitigating factors for all offenses and imposed consecutive aggravated sentences of twenty to twenty-four months for each involuntary manslaughter conviction and a consecutive aggravated sentence of twelve months for the driving while impaired conviction.

Defendant appealed to the Court of Appeals, arguing that he was entitled to a new trial. Defendant filed his brief with the Court of Appeals in August 2003, before the United States Supreme Court issued Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296, 124 S.Ct. 2531, 159 L.Ed.2d 403 (2004) (reversing the trial court's imposition of an aggravated sentence on the criminal defendant because the trial court failed to impose the sentence enhancement solely based on the facts reflected in the jury verdict or admitted by the defendant). Hence, when defendant filed his Court of Appeals brief he was unable to argue that the trial court violated Blakely by imposing an aggravated sentence without a jury determination of the existence of the aggravating factors. To preserve this argument, defendant filed a motion for appropriate relief with the Court of Appeals while his appeal was pending. In this motion for appropriate relief, defendant argued that the trial court's imposition of a sentence in the aggravated range violated the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution as interpreted by Blakely v. Washington.

The Court of Appeals considered defendant's motion for appropriate relief along with his appeal. The Court of Appeals found no prejudicial error in defendant's trial and conviction; however, it granted defendant's motion for appropriate relief and remanded for resentencing, holding that "[a]s the jury did not decide the aggravating factors considered by the trial court, defendant's Sixth Amendment right to a trial by jury was violated." State v. Speight, 166 N.C.App. 106, 117, 602 S.E.2d 4, 12 (2004). The court further found that "`when "the [trial] judge [has] erred in a finding or findings in aggravation and imposed a sentence beyond the presumptive term, the case must be remanded for a new sentencing hearing."'" Speight, 166 N.C.App. at 117-18, 602 S.E.2d at 12 (quoting State v. Ahearn, 307 N.C. 584, 602, 300 S.E.2d 689, 701 (1983)) (alterations in original), quoted in State v. Allen, 166 N.C.App. 139, 149, 601 S.E.2d 299, 306 (2004).

On 23 September 2004, this Court allowed the State's petition for discretionary review as to the issues of (1) whether the Court of Appeals erred by holding that harmless error analysis could not be applied to a constitutional error under Blakely, and (2) if so, whether the error in this case was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Additionally, on 10 February 2005, this Court agreed to consider defendant's second motion for appropriate relief on the issue of whether, as a result of Blakely, his sentence violated State v. Lucas, 353 N.C. 568, 548 S.E.2d 712 (2001), because the aggravating circumstances found by the trial court were not alleged in his indictments.

We now address the issues presented by the State and by defendant. Pursuant to State v. Allen, ___ N.C. ___, ___ S.E.2d ___, 2005 WL 1539186 (2005), we conclude that the trial court committed reversible structural error by finding the aggravating circumstances in this case.

In Allen, we held that "Blakely errors arising under North Carolina's Structured Sentencing Act are structural and, therefore, reversible per se." Id. at ___, ___ S.E.2d at ___ (Allen addresses the same issues as the case sub judice and is being filed on the same day as the instant case). Therefore, the Court of Appeals properly held that harmless error analysis could not be applied to a constitutional error under Blakely, and we need not address the issue of whether the error in this case can be harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.

Although our holding in Allen specifically applies only to sentences imposed under North Carolina's Structured Sentencing Act, the rationale in Allen applies to all cases in which (1) a defendant is constitutionally entitled to a jury trial, and (2) a trial court has found one or more aggravating factors and increased a defendant's sentence beyond the presumptive range without submitting the aggravating factors to a jury. See Allen, ___ N.C. at ___, ___ S.E.2d at ___ ("Other than the fact of a prior conviction, any fact that increases the penalty for a crime beyond the prescribed presumptive range must be submitted to a jury, and proved beyond a reasonable doubt."). Defendant was entitled to a jury trial for his impaired driving offense. Although the offense is a misdemeanor, see N.C.G.S. § 20-138.1, it is punishable by more than six months imprisonment.² See Baldwin v. New York, 399 U.S. 66, 69, 90 S.Ct. 1886, 1888, 26 L.Ed.2d 437, 440 (1970) ("[N]o offense can be deemed `petty' for purposes of the right to trial by jury where imprisonment for more than six months is authorized."). Defendant was also constitutionally entitled to a jury trial for his involuntary manslaughter convictions. See id. The trial court improperly found the aggravating circumstances in this case and imposed aggravated sentences for all three convictions. Therefore, the Court of Appeals properly remanded this case to the trial court for resentencing consistent with Blakely, and defendant is entitled to resentencing for all his convictions.

Additionally, pursuant to Allen, we conclude that aggravating factors need not be alleged in an indictment. ___ N.C. at ___, ___ S.E.2d at ___ (overruling the language in State v. Lucas "requiring sentencing factors which might lead to a sentencing enhancement to be alleged in an indictment," finding no error in the State's failure to include aggravating factors in the defendant's indictment, and stating that in State v. Hunt, "[T]his Court concluded that `the Fifth Amendment would not require aggravators, even if they were fundamental equivalents of elements of an offense, to be pled in a state-court indictment.'" (quoting State v. Hunt, 357 N.C. 257, 272, 582 S.E.2d 593, 603, cert. denied, 539 U.S. 985, 124 S.Ct. 44, 156 L.Ed.2d 702 (2003))). Therefore, defend...