STATE v. McKINNEY, 173 N.C. App. 448 (2005)

STATE v. McKINNEY.

No. 04-14.North Carolina Court of Appeals.
Filed 20 September 2005.

[EDITORS’ NOTE: THIS PAGE CONTAINS HEADNOTES. HEADNOTES ARE NOT AN OFFICIAL PRODUCT OF THE COURT, THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT DISPLAYED.]

Wayne County Nos. 01 CRS 57630-31.

On a writ of certiorari from judgment entered 14 October 2002 by Judge Jerry Braswell in Wayne County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 3 January 2005.

Attorney General Roy Cooper, by Assistant Attorney General Grady L. Balentine, Jr., for the State.
Irving Joyner, for defendant-appellant.

CALABRIA, Judge.

On appeal, Jamey Trilley McKinney (“defendant”) challenges his sentence on the grounds that under Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296, 159 L. Ed. 2d 403 (2004), an State v. Allen, ___ N.C. ___, 615 S.E.2d 256 (2005), the trial court improperly sentenced him in the aggravated range. We remand for re-sentencing.

Defendant pled guilty to first-degree rape and robbery with a dangerous weapon. The trial court consolidated the offenses, found as an aggravating factor that the victim was very old and physically infirm, then sentenced him within the aggravated range to a minimum term of 320 months and a maximum term of 393 months in the North Carolina Department of Correction. Defendant raises two arguments on appeal. First, defendant contends the court committed plain error by accepting his guilty plea without an adequate factual basis. This contention is dismissed because this Court’s order granting defendant’s petition for writ of certiorari expressly limited review to an examination of defendant’s sentence.

Second, defendant contends the court erred in his sentence by finding as an aggravating factor that the victim was very old and physically infirm. In his motion for appropriate relief, defendant argues, and we agree, that the trial court erred by imposing a sentence in the aggravated range, on the grounds that the aggravating factors were neither submitted to the jury nor admitted by the defendant. We remand for re-sentencing in conformity with the holdings of Blakely an Allen.

Remand for re-sentencing.

Judges TIMMONS-GOODSON and LEVINSON concur.

Report per Rule 30(e).

jdjungle

Share
Published by
jdjungle

Recent Posts

HAYES v. WALTZ, 784 S.E.2d 607 (2016)

784 S.E.2d 607 (2016) 246 NC App. 438 Christopher HAYES, Plaintiff, v. Scott WALTZ, Defendant. No.…

3 weeks ago

National Council v. Tate, 212 N.C. 305 (1937)

212 N.C. 305 (1937) Nov. 3, 1937 Supreme Court of North Carolina THE NATIONAL COUNCIL, JUNIOR…

5 years ago

CAMBRIDGE SOUTHPORT, LLC. v. SOUTHEAST BRUNSWICK SAINTARY DISTRICT, 721 S.E.2d 736 (N.C. App. 2012)

721 S.E.2d 736 CAMBRIDGE SOUTHPORT, LLC, a North Carolina Limited Liability Company, Plaintiff–Appellee, v. SOUTHEAST…

8 years ago

STATE v. MATTHEWS, 720 S.E.2d 829 (2012)

720 S.E.2d 829 STATE of North Carolina v. John Donald MATTHEWS. No. COA11–356. Court of…

8 years ago

COFFEY v. WEYERHAEUSER CO., 720 S.E.2d 879 (N.C. App. 2012)

720 S.E.2d 879 Sheila COFFEY, Administrator for the Estate of Dennis H. Barber, Sr., Deceased…

8 years ago

STATE v. HAMMONDS, 720 S.E.2d 820 (N.C. App. 2012)

720 S.E.2d 820 STATE of North Carolina, v. Christopher Bernard HAMMONDS, Defendant. No. COA11–271. Court…

8 years ago