Court Opinion

ID: 9855862
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 06:32:21.156152+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:37:13.676915
License: Public Domain

Justice MARTIN,
concurring in part and dissenting in part.
I concur in the majority’s holding that the nonstatutory aggravating factor at issue is “reasonably related to the purposes of sentencing” and thus valid under North Carolina law. N.C.G.S. § 15A-1340.16(d)(20) (2003).
For the reasons stated in my separate opinion in State v. Allen, however, I disagree with the majority’s conclusion that Blakely errors are not amenable to harmless-error review. State v. Allen, 359 N.C. 444, 615 S.E.2d 256,-(July 1, 2005) (No. 485PA04) (Martin, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part). Accordingly, I dissent from the majority’s decision to allow defendant’s motion for appropriate relief without considering whether the instant Blakely violation was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
Chief Justice LAKE and Justice NEWBY join in this concurring and dissenting opinion.