Court Opinion

ID: 9583220
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 22:36:04.149028+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:38:53.192601
License: Public Domain

LEVINSON, Judge
concurring in part and dissenting in part.
I concur in the majority opinion, except with regard to its holding that it was not error for the trial court to find the nonstatutory aggravating factor that this offense was part of a course of conduct involving violence against other persons. I therefore respectfully dissent on this issue.
“The State has the burden of proving the existence of a nonstatu-tory aggravating factor by a preponderance of the evidence.” State v. Hargrove, 104 N.C. App. 194, 200, 408 S.E.2d 757, 761 (1991). In the instant case, defendant’s sentence was based in part upon the non-statutory aggravating factor that defendant’s commission of robbery with a dangerous weapon “was part of a course of conduct by the defendant involving violence against other persons, including at least 2 previous robberies.” The court based this finding on the defendant’s criminal record, which included prior convictions for, e.g., common law robbery and assault. However, no evidence was adduced at trial or during sentencing concerning the facts or circumstances of these prior convictions. Thus, the trial court found the existence of this aggravating factor based solely on the bare fact of defendant’s prior record. I believe this was error for several reasons.
First, the legislature has already established a mechanism for consideration of a criminal defendant’s prior record in determining the appropriate sentence. Chapter 14 of the North Carolina General Statute assigns criminal offenses to a specific “class” corresponding to the seriousness of the offense. Under N.C.G.S. § 15A-1340.14 (2003), a trial judge sentencing a defendant for a felony offense must first determine the defendant’s “level” by assigning a certain number of “points” for each prior conviction, depending on the class of the prior offense. Thus, the presumptive sentence for a criminal defendant is a function of both his current offense and his prior record. I would conclude that, in the absence of factual information about the defendant’s prior convictions, consideration of his criminal history is generally accomplished by means of this statutory sentencing grid. In *128the instant case, the trial court’s finding is tantamount to a nonstatu-tory aggravating factor that “defendant has a prior criminal history.”1
Secondly, the State failed to present any evidence to support this aggravating factor. In this regard, it is useful to consider a statutory aggravating factor that may be considered by the jury in the sentencing phase of a capital case:
(11) The murder for which the defendant stands convicted was part of a course of conduct in which the defendant engaged and which included the commission by the defendant of other crimes of violence against another person or persons.
N.C.G.S. § 15A-2000(e)(ll) (2003). Because the language of this aggravating factor essentially parallels that found by the trial court, cases interpreting G.S. § 15A-2000(e)(ll) are instructive. In State v. Cummings, 346 N.C. 291, 328-29, 488 S.E.2d 550, 572 (1997) the North Carolina Supreme Court held:
Submission of course of conduct requires that “there is evidence that the victim’s murder and the other violent crimes were part of a pattern of intentional acts establishing that in defendant’s mind, there existed a plan, scheme or design involving the murder of the victim and the other crimes of violence.” ... In determining whether the evidence tends to show that another crime and the crime for which defendant is being sentenced were part of a course of conduct, the trial court must consider a number of factors, including the temporal proximity of the events to one another, a recurrent modus operandi, and motivation by the same reasons.
(quoting State v. Walls, 342 N.C. 1, 69, 463 S.E.2d 738, 775 (1995)) (further citations omitted). Thus, the Court required a factual connection among the crimes alleged to constitute a “course of conduct.” The North Carolina Supreme Court has consistently adhered to the requirements articulated in Cummings. For example, in State v. Hoffman, 349 N.C. 167, 188, 505 S.E.2d 80, 93 (1998), the Court approved submission of the aggravating factor, noting that:
*129The robbery and murder in this case occurred [in] November 1995. The two bank robberies . . . occurred [in September and October 1995]. This span of time was not so great as to prevent the crimes from being considered part of the same course of conduct. There was also a similar modus operandi employed in the crimes. All occurred in small towns around Charlotte, North Carolina. All occurred in daylight hours while the businesses were open. The same sawed-off shotgun, green bag, ski mask, and white Nissan were used in all the crimes. Finally, all the crimes shared the same motive, pecuniary gain.
(citing Cummings, 346 N.C. at 328-29, 488 S.E.2d at 572). However, in State v. Berry, 356 N.C. 490, 573 S.E.2d 132 (2002), the Court found plain error where the trial court gave an instruction that “allowed the jury to find the aggravating circumstance without also finding that the murder of Fetter was part of a course of conduct that included the earlier murder of Maves. The mere fact that one murder followed the other does not establish a course of conduct.” Id. at 523, 573 S.E.2d at 153.2
State v. Avery, 315 N.C. 1, 337 S.E.2d 786 (1985), relied upon by the majority opinion, neither contradicts these holdings nor supports the proposition that the present defendant’s bare criminal record can support the trial court’s finding that the subject offense “was part of a course of conduct by the defendant involving violence against other persons, including at least 2 previous robberies.” First, in Avery, 315 N.C. at 35, 337 S.E.2d at 805, the trial court based its finding that the defendant had “engaged in a pattern or course of violent conduct” on “evidence that prior to [the] date [of the subject offenses] defendant had hit several members of his family during attacks of rage, shot a gun while angry at one of his neighbors, hit his boss at another company where he once worked, and was involved in two fist fights.” Id. at 35, 337 S.E.2d at 806. Thus, the trial court based its finding on this factual information about the defendant’s actions, and not upon his criminal record. Indeed, the opinion does not even state whether these actions were the subject of criminal prosecution. Secondly, the issue before the Court was whether two aggravators were duplicative of each other. The Court in Avery did not address the issue of what *130evidence is required in order for a series of actions to constitute a “course of conduct.” In sum, Avery, decided in 1985 under the repealed Fair Sentencing Act, neither contradicts current Supreme Court jurisprudence nor supports the trial court’s finding of this aggravator in the instant case.
In the present case no evidence was presented regarding the factors cited in Cummings or any other factual connection between the subject offense and defendant’s prior criminal behavior. This was error and, accordingly, I dissent from this part of the majority opinion.

. Another common scenario could be implicated by the majority’s opinion insofar as it affirms the trial court’s judgment concerning the “course of conduct” factor. Individuals being sentenced for the sale and delivery of cocaine whose prior records reveal convictions for similar offenses could be subject to a finding that “defendant has engaged in a course of conduct involving the violation of controlled substances statutes” based merely on a review of their prior criminal histories. This, in my view, would be erroneous.

. An individual may commit the offense of resisting a law enforcement officer without the use of physical violence. State v. Hardy, 298 N.C. 191, 196, 257 S.E.2d 426, 430 (1979). That the majority opinion rests its reasoning, in part, upon defendant’s conviction of this offense demonstrates the danger in permitting our trial courts to find a course of conduct by merely examining criminal histories without evidence of a factual relationship among the relevant offenses.