{ "id": 12138596, "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. JOHN LEE BOZEMAN", "name_abbreviation": "State v. Bozeman", "decision_date": "1994-08-02", "docket_number": "No. 925SC1257", "first_page": "658", "last_page": "666", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "115 N.C. App. 658" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "N.C. Ct. App.", "id": 14983, "name": "North Carolina Court of Appeals" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 5, "name_long": "North Carolina", "name": "N.C." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "97 ALR2d 549", "category": "reporters:specialty", "reporter": "A.L.R. 2d", "weight": 2, "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "300 S.E.2d 689", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1983, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "701", "parenthetical": "emphasis added" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "307 N.C. 584", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8565300 ], "year": 1983, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "602", "parenthetical": "emphasis added" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/307/0584-01" ] }, { "cite": "321 S.E.2d 520", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1984, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "523", "parenthetical": "applying a similar analysis to G.S. \u00a7 15A-1340.4(a)(1)(g)" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "71 N.C. App. 125", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8524180 ], "year": 1984, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "129-30", "parenthetical": "applying a similar analysis to G.S. \u00a7 15A-1340.4(a)(1)(g)" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/71/0125-01" ] }, { "cite": "424 S.E.2d 914", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 1992, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "333 N.C. 170", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 2548224, 2548489, 2545554, 2545101 ], "year": 1992, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/333/0170-02", "/nc/333/0170-04", "/nc/333/0170-01", "/nc/333/0170-03" ] }, { "cite": "417 S.E.2d 262", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1992, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "268" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "106 N.C. App. 433", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 5314116 ], "year": 1992, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "442" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/106/0433-01" ] }, { "cite": "611 F.2d 61", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "F.2d", "case_ids": [ 469979 ], "year": 1979, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "65" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/f2d/611/0061-01" ] }, { "cite": "189 S.E.2d 796", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 3, "year": 1972, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "796" }, { "page": "797" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "15 N.C. App. 280", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8549854 ], "year": 1972, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/15/0280-01" ] }, { "cite": "379 S.E.2d 30", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1989, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "37", "parenthetical": "a decision of an earlier panel of the Court of Appeals is binding on a subsequent panel" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "324 N.C. 373", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 2483734 ], "year": 1989, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "384", "parenthetical": "a decision of an earlier panel of the Court of Appeals is binding on a subsequent panel" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/324/0373-01" ] }, { "cite": "326 S.E.2d 120", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1985, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "122" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "73 N.C. App. 269", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8523326 ], "year": 1985, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "271" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/73/0269-01" ] }, { "cite": "354 S.E.2d 891", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1987, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "894" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "85 N.C. App. 319", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 12169876 ], "year": 1987, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "324" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/85/0319-01" ] }, { "cite": "544 F.2d 633", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "F.2d", "case_ids": [ 1020799 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1976, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "635-36", "parenthetical": "construing F.R. Crim. P. 11(c)" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/f2d/544/0633-01" ] }, { "cite": "300 S.E.2d 826", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 5, "year": 1983, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "829" }, { "page": "827-28" }, { "page": "829" }, { "page": "829" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "61 N.C. App. 284", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8520597 ], "weight": 3, "year": 1983, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "289" }, { "page": "289" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/61/0284-01" ] }, { "cite": "38 L.Ed.2d 241", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "L. Ed. 2d", "year": 1973, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "414 U.S. 1005", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 11792836, 11792293, 11792167, 11792522, 11792076, 11792748, 11792237, 11792404, 11792023, 11792475, 11791965 ], "year": 1973, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/414/1005-11", "/us/414/1005-06", "/us/414/1005-04", "/us/414/1005-09", "/us/414/1005-03", "/us/414/1005-10", "/us/414/1005-05", "/us/414/1005-07", "/us/414/1005-02", "/us/414/1005-08", "/us/414/1005-01" ] }, { "cite": "475 F.2d 1364", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "F.2d", "case_ids": [ 281602 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "1366" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/f2d/475/1364-01" ] }, { "cite": "353 S.E.2d 682", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1987, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "684" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "84 N.C. App. 623", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 12169063 ], "year": 1987, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "627" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/84/0623-01" ] }, { "cite": "242 F.2d 101", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "F.2d", "case_ids": [ 413523 ], "year": 1957, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "115" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/f2d/242/0101-01" ] }, { "cite": "397 U.S. 742", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 12058257 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1970, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "755", "parenthetical": "emphasis added" }, { "page": "760", "parenthetical": "emphasis added" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/397/0742-01" ] }, { "cite": "395 U.S. 238", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 1771759 ], "weight": 4, "year": 1969, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "244" }, { "page": "280" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/395/0238-01" ] }, { "cite": "203 S.E.2d 826", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 1974, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "829" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "285 N.C. 167", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8562672 ], "year": 1974, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "172" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/285/0167-01" ] }, { "cite": "404 S.E.2d 822", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1991, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "329 N.C. 128", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 2554442 ], "year": 1991, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/329/0128-01" ] }, { "cite": "392 S.E.2d 140", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 1990, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "148" }, { "page": "149" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "98 N.C. App. 518", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8525243 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1990, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "530" }, { "page": "531" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/98/0518-01" ] }, { "cite": "310 S.E.2d 83", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1983, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "87" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "65 N.C. App. 472", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8524758 ], "year": 1983, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "478" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/65/0472-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 874, "char_count": 17887, "ocr_confidence": 0.731, "pagerank": { "raw": 2.3571323515120747e-07, "percentile": 0.7938480197108017 }, "sha256": "1e8475f7bfce9c17f55ac3335c69adf8ce2acbe3c8e38eae8832d36173e22648", "simhash": "1:eea55de66202ab5e", "word_count": 2881 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:58:18.676868+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Chief Judge ARNOLD and Judge WYNN concur." ], "parties": [ "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. JOHN LEE BOZEMAN" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "JOHN, Judge.\nDefendant was indicted on three counts of Trafficking in Cocaine; two counts of Possession of Cocaine with Intent to Sell and Deliver; two counts of Sale and Delivery of Cocaine; and one count of Conspiracy to Sell and Deliver Cocaine. At trial, he pled guilty to all charges and was examined by the court concerning his plea. Following the State\u2019s presentation of evidence concerning the offenses and sentencing, the court adjudicated defendant guilty and imposed prison terms totaling 71 years plus a $300,000 fine.\nDefendant maintains the trial court erred by: (1) accepting his guilty plea and (2) finding as a factor in aggravation of sentence that defendant engaged a seventeen-year-old youth, his son, in the offenses. We find defendant\u2019s second argument persuasive and remand for resentencing.\nI.\nDefendant advances two bases for contending the trial court erred in accepting his guilty plea. First, the court failed to advise him of the mandatory minimum sentence he might receive and second, the court indicated to defendant he faced a potential fine of $50,000 rather than the $300,000 fine actually imposed. Therefore, asserts defendant, his guilty plea was \u201cinvoluntary\u201d and the trial court erred in entering judgment upon that plea.\nA.\nAs regards sentence, our review indicates the trial court informed defendant only that he \u201ccould be imprisoned for a possible maximum sentence of 95 years . . . .\u201d While the court\u2019s statement accurately totaled the maximum terms for the offenses to which defendant pled guilty, it omitted mention of the mandatory minimum term of seven years applicable to the offense of drug trafficking. See N.C.G.S. \u00a7 90-95(h)(3) (Cum. Supp. 1992) (current version at G.S. \u00a7 90-95(h)(3) (1993)). This failure constituted a violation of N.C.G.S. \u00a7 15A-1022(a)(6) (1988) (\u201c[A] superior court judge may not accept a plea of guilty ... without first. . . informing [the defendant] ... of the mandatory minimum sentence, if any, on the charge\u201d). We therefore must consider whether this error was prejudicial. See State v. Williams, 65 N.C. App. 472, 478, 310 S.E.2d 83, 87 (1983).\nResolution of the issue of prejudice involves an initial determination of whether the error relates to rights arising under the United States Constitution. State v. Arnold, 98 N.C. App. 518, 530, 392 S.E.2d 140, 148 (1990), aff\u2019d, 329 N.C. 128, 404 S.E.2d 822 (1991). Nonetheless, even should the error be constitutional, reversal of a conviction is not necessarily mandated. State v. Heard and Jones, 285 N.C. 167, 172, 203 S.E.2d 826, 829 (1974). N.C.G.S. \u00a7 15A-1443(b) (1988) provides that if the right affected arises under the Constitution of the United States, a defendant is presumed prejudiced \u201cunless the appellate court finds that [the violation] was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.\u201d The State carries the burden of proving such error was harmless. G.S. \u00a7 15A-1443(b). However, if the affected right does not arise under the Constitution of the United States, the defendant is prejudiced only \u201cwhen there is a reasonable possibility that, had the error in question not been committed, a different result would have been reached at the trial out of which the appeal arises.\u201d G.S. \u00a7 15A-1443(a). Concerning such \u201cordinary\u201d error, the burden of proof resides with the defendant. Id. \u201cAside from the placement of the burden of proof, each standard is substantially equivalent to the other.\u201d Arnold, 98 N.C. App. at 531, 392 S.E.2d at 149. With these principles in mind, we turn to the question of whether the trial court\u2019s error was of constitutional significance.\nG.S \u00a7 15A-1022(a)(6) is based upon constitutional principles enunciated in Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238, 23 L.Ed.2d 274 (1969) and its progeny. See Official Commentary to G.S. \u00a7 15A-1022. Under Boykin, due process, as established by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, requires that a defendant\u2019s guilty plea be made voluntarily, intelligently and understandingly. Boykin, 395 U.S. at 244, 23 L.Ed.2d at 280. Although a defendant need not be informed of all possible indirect and collateral consequences, the plea nonetheless must be \u201centered by one fully aware of the direct consequences, including the actual value of any commitments made to him by the court. . . .\u201d Brady v. United States, 397 U.S. 742, 755, 25 L.Ed.2d 747, 760 (1970) (emphasis added) (quoting Shelton v. United States, 242 F.2d 101, 115 (1957)); see also State v. Mercer, 84 N.C. App. 623, 627, 353 S.E.2d 682, 684 (1987). \u201cDirect consequences\u201d have been defined as those which have a \u201cdefinite, immediate and largely automatic effect on the range of the defendant\u2019s punishment.\u201d Cuthrell v. Director, Patuxent Institution, 475 F.2d 1364, 1366 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 414 U.S. 1005, 38 L.Ed.2d 241 (1973).\nWhile the foregoing definition \u201cshould not be applied in a technical, ritualistic manner,\u201d State v. Richardson, 61 N.C. App. 284, 289, 300 S.E.2d 826, 829 (1983), we are compelled to conclude that a mandatory minimum sentence constitutes a \u201cdirect consequence\u201d of a guilty plea. Such sentences comprise one of the few truly \u201cautomatic\u201d characteristics of our correctional system; when a mandatory minimum sentence is legislatively prescribed, the trial court must impose an active prison term of at least the minimum duration established. A majority of jurisdictions considering this question appear to view compulsory minimum sentences as direct consequences of a guilty plea. See 22 C.J.S. Criminal Law \u00a7 403, at 476 (1989); see also 21 Am. Jur.2d Criminal Law \u00a7 476, at 771 (1981). This is particularly so in jurisdictions, such as our own, which in response to Boykin have adopted criminal procedure statutes mandating certain information be conveyed by the trial court to an accused who is pleading guilty. See, e.g., United States v. Journet, 544 F.2d 633, 635-36 (2d Cir. 1976) (construing F.R. Crim. P. 11(c)).\nBecause the mandatory minimum sentence for drug trafficking was a \u201cdirect consequence\u201d of defendant\u2019s guilty plea, we must apply the review required by G.S. \u00a7 15A-1443(b). As previously noted, the State has the burden of proving the constitutional error was harmless and must do so \u201cbeyond a reasonable doubt.\u201d G.S. \u00a7 15A-1443(b). The State, however, perhaps relying on the provision that \u201cthe appellate court\u201d must find the violation harmless under the statutory standard, id., has presented no argument that the failure to advise defendant properly constituted only harmless error. While the State\u2019s neglect is cause for concern, we nonetheless conclude the trial court\u2019s error was harmless in view of our decision in State v. Richardson, 61 N.C. App. 284, 300 S.E.2d 826 (1983).\nIn Richardson, two defendants who pled no contest to armed robbery were not informed of the applicable mandatory minimum sentence of seven years. Id. at 286-87, 300 S.E.2d at 827-28. This court nevertheless held the pleas were voluntarily and intelligently made based upon the record which indicated the defendants were informed they would likely receive a 30-40 year sentence and could be sentenced to life imprisonment. Id. at 289, 300 S.E.2d at 829.\nAs in Richardson, defendant Bozeman herein faced an analogous mandatory minimum sentence of seven years. Both the Trafficking in Cocaine statute (G.S. \u00a7 90-95(h)(6)) and that proscribing Armed Robbery (N.C.G.S. \u00a7 14-87(d)) provide that \u201c[sentences imposed pursuant to this section shall run consecutively with and shall commence at the expiration of any sentence being served by the person sentenced hereunder.\u201d Quoted from G.S. \u00a7 14-87(d). The two provisions differ only in that the former utilizes the phrase \u201csubsection\u201d instead of \u201csection.\u201d We have previously ruled G.S. \u00a7 14-87(d) does not require consecutive sentencing for two armed robbery offenses disposed of in the same proceeding. State v. Thomas, 85 N.C. App. 319, 324, 354 S.E.2d 891, 894 (1987); State v. Crain, 73 N.C. App. 269, 271, 326 S.E.2d 120, 122 (1985). Consequently, although defendant was charged with three counts of Trafficking in Cocaine, only a single minimum sentence of seven years was mandated by the identical language of G.S. \u00a7 90-95(h)(6).\nThe remaining facts of the case sub judice are also indistinguishable from Richardson. In both circumstances, the defendants were accurately informed of substantial potential prison terms. In Richardson, defendants were notified they could expect to receive 30-40 years and could receive a life term. Defendant herein was informed he could receive a maximum sentence of 95 years. Based upon the nearly identical circumstances of Richardson, we find the decision therein controlling and hold the failure to inform defendant of the applicable mandatory minimum \u201ccould not have reasonably affected [defendant\u2019s] decision to plead [guilty],\u201d Richardson, 61 N.C. App. at 289, 300 S.E.2d at 829; cf. In the Matter of Appeal from Civil Penalty, 324 N.C. 373, 384, 379 S.E.2d 30, 37 (1989) (a decision of an earlier panel of the Court of Appeals is binding on a subsequent panel). Accordingly, the trial court\u2019s oversight constituted harmless error.\nIrrespective of our present holding, we encourage caution by the trial bench in observing the requirements of G.S. \u00a7 15A-1022. We acknowledge that in practice it is generally counsel for the State and the defendant who furnish the court sentencing information on transcript of plea forms. As officers of the court, these individuals also have a responsibility to ensure the forms are complete and accurate when submitted to the trial judge.\nB.\nDefendant also asserts his plea should be set aside because the trial court incorrectly informed him he was facing a $50,000 fine and thereafter assessed total fines of $300,000. We note G.S. \u00a7 15A-1022(a) contains no provision requiring a defendant to be informed of any potential fines prior to acceptance of a guilty plea. Nonetheless, defendant argues the discrepancy between the amount of potential fine stated and that actually imposed affected the constitutional vol-untariness of his guilty plea.\nThis Court addressed an analogous situation in State v. Barnes, 15 N.C. App. 280, 189 S.E.2d 796 (1972). In Barnes, the trial court failed to inform the defendant of any possible fine. As in the case sub judice, defendant Barnes argued the voluntariness of his plea had been affected since as an indigent, \u201cmonetary matters were of \u2018supreme importance\u2019 to him . . . .\u201d Barnes, 16 N.C. App. at 281, 189 S.E.2d at 796. We rejected Barnes\u2019 contentions because no fine was actually imposed, and we observed:\n[I]n view of defendant\u2019s knowledge of his own indigency and that he was unable to pay and therefore probably would not pay any fine whatever, no matter in what amount imposed, we think it highly unrealistic to assume that his plea of guilty would have been any more \u201cfreely, understandingly and voluntarily made\u201d had he been explicitly and correctly informed by the trial judge that a fine in addition to the prison sentence might be imposed against him.\nBarnes, 16 N.C. App. at 281, 189 S.E.2d at 797.\nWe find the reasoning in Barnes equally applicable to the case sub judice. The record on appeal indicates defendant was indigent at the time of his plea, but nonetheless tendered it with full knowledge that he faced both a substantial fine ($50,000) and an extended prison term. In view of these circumstances, we cannot conclude the discrepancy between the amount of fine recited by the court and the amount assessed had any effect on defendant\u2019s decision to plead guilty. We therefore reject defendant\u2019s second basis for asserting his guilty plea was involuntary.\nNonetheless, we observe that a new sentencing hearing is required by our opinion. See infra, section II. Upon resentencing, the court must again consider the matter of an appropriate fine in addition to the term imposed. In the interest of justice, we direct that defendant\u2019s total fine at resentencing not exceed $50,000. See N.C.G.S. \u00a7 15A-1363 (1988) (In the interest of justice, the court may \u201cremit or revoke the fine or costs ....\u201d). In this fashion, any discrepancy concern will be rendered harmless as a matter of law. We note a similar procedure was endorsed.by the Fourth Circuit in Stader v. Garrison, 611 F.2d 61, 65 (1979).\nII.\nDefendant\u2019s final contention is addressed to the following statement made by the trial court at the time sentence was imposed:\nMr. Bozeman, it\u2019s bad enough to sell cocaine. ... But to send a 17-year-old boy out there. I am afraid that makes it so that any sympathy I have disappears. I am sure you are familiar with what the Bible says when the accused caused the little ones to go astray. It is better he had a millstone around his neck and be cast into the sea.\nDefendant asserts this declaration amounted to an erroneous non-statutory finding in aggravation of sentence. We are constrained to agree.\nThe gravamen of the trial court\u2019s commentary is that the court was unable to sympathize with defendant during sentencing because he had involved a 17-year-old child, coincidentally his son, in the drug transactions. Although the trial court did not explicitly find this as a non-statutory aggravating factor, the court\u2019s remarks can only be read as reflecting that this \u201cfactor\u201d was indeed considered during sentencing. See State v. Shaw, 106 N.C. App. 433, 442, 417 S.E.2d 262, 268, disc. review denied, 333 N.C. 170, 424 S.E.2d 914 (1992). Moreover, absence of formal documentation of the finding does not insulate it from appellate review. Id.\nThe Fair Sentencing Act, North Carolina\u2019s legislatively enacted sentencing guideline, contains the following statutory aggravating factor: \u201c[t]he defendant involved a person under the age of 16 in the commission of the crime.\u201d G.S. \u00a7 15A-1340.4(a)(1)(1) (Cum. Supp. 1993). The General Assembly thus has limited application of this factor to situations where the individual implicated by the defendant was \u201cunder the age of 16.\u201d See State v. Bethea, 71 N.C. App. 125, 129-30, 321 S.E.2d 520, 523 (1984) (applying a similar analysis to G.S. \u00a7 15A-1340.4(a)(1)(g)). The youth referred to in the case sub judice was older than the statutorily prescribed maximum age, and it was therefore error for the trial court to consider the essence of subsection (a)(1)(1) when sentencing defendant.\nBecause defendant\u2019s sentence exceeded the presumptive term, the trial court\u2019s error necessitates resentencing. As stated by our Supreme Court, \u201cin every case in which it is found that the judge erred in a finding ... in aggravation and imposed a sentence beyond the presumptive term, the case must be remanded for a new sentencing hearing.\u201d State v. Aheam, 307 N.C. 584, 602, 300 S.E.2d 689, 701 (1983) (emphasis added). While the trial court may have been understandably concerned about defendant\u2019s involvement of a young person in what the State contended was an extensive criminal enterprise, we must be guided by established law. Accordingly, we remand for resentencing upon defendant\u2019s guilty pleas.\nRemanded for resentencing with instructions.\nChief Judge ARNOLD and Judge WYNN concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "JOHN, Judge." } ], "attorneys": [ "Attorney General Michael F. Easley, by Associate Attorney General Elizabeth Leonard McKay, for the State.", "Nora Henry Hargrove for defendant-appellant." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. JOHN LEE BOZEMAN\nNo. 925SC1257\n(Filed 2 August 1994)\n1. Criminal Law \u00a7 139 (NCI4th)\u2014 failure to inform defendant of mandatory minimum sentence \u2014 violation of constitutional rights \u2014 harmless error\nThough failure to inform defendant of the applicable mandatory minimum sentence for drug trafficking violated N.C.G.S. \u00a7 15A-1022(a)(6) and defendant\u2019s constitutional right to have a guilty plea entered voluntarily, intelligently, and understandingly because a mandatory minimum sentence constitutes a \u201cdirect consequence\u201d of a guilty plea, such error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, since defendant was informed that he could receive a maximum sentence of 95 years, and failure to inform him of a mandatory minimum seven-year sentence could not have reasonably affected defendant\u2019s decision to plead guilty.\nAon Jur 2d, Criminal Law \u00a7\u00a7 473-480.\nCourt\u2019s duty to advise or admonish accused as to consequences of plea of guilty, or to determine that he is advised thereof. 97 ALR2d 549.\n2. Criminal Law \u00a7 139 (NCI4th)\u2014 indigent defendant \u2014 possible fine \u2014 higher fine assessed \u2014 voluntariness of guilty plea unaffected\nThere was no merit to defendant\u2019s contention that his guilty plea should be set aside because the trial court incorrectly informed him he was facing a $50,000 fine and thereafter assessed total fines of $300,000, since the record on appeal indicated that defendant was indigent at the time of his plea but nonetheless tendered it with full knowledge that he faced both a substantial fine and an extended prison term, and it could not be said that the discrepancy had any effect on defendant\u2019s decision to plead guilty.\nAm Jur 2d, Criminal Law \u00a7\u00a7 473-480.\nCourt\u2019s duty to advise or admonish accused as to consequences of plea of guilty, or to determine that he is advised thereof. 97 ALR2d 549.\n3. Criminal Law \u00a7 1170 (NCI4th)\u2014 narcotics offenses\u2014 involvement of seventeen-year-old \u2014 consideration as non-statutory aggravating factor \u2014 error\nIn a prosecution of defendant for various narcotics offenses, the trial court erred in considering as a nonstatutory aggravating factor that defendant involved a young person seventeen years of age, since the youth referred to in this case was older than the statutorily prescribed maximum age of sixteen, and it was therefore error to consider the essence of N.C.G.S. \u00a7 15A-1340.4(a)(l)(l) when sentencing defendant.\nAm Jur 2d, Criminal Law \u00a7\u00a7 598, 599.\nAppeal by defendant from judgments entered 4 February 1992 by Judge Gary E. Trawick in New Hanover County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 27 September 1993.\nAttorney General Michael F. Easley, by Associate Attorney General Elizabeth Leonard McKay, for the State.\nNora Henry Hargrove for defendant-appellant." }, "file_name": "0658-01", "first_page_order": 690, "last_page_order": 698 }