{
  "id": 11866162,
  "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. TONY DOUGLAS CALDWELL",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Caldwell",
  "decision_date": "1997-01-07",
  "docket_number": "No. COA96-726",
  "first_page": "161",
  "last_page": "163",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "125 N.C. App. 161"
    }
  ],
  "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": "432 S.E.2d 417",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1993,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "418"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "111 N.C. App. 448",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8522552
      ],
      "year": 1993,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "450"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/111/0448-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 289,
    "char_count": 4890,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.689,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.559214505611391e-07,
      "percentile": 0.6766375182491334
    },
    "sha256": "a486d31a5238f6e1e172b11902f074adfe8304bac753d2f23582b23d08e4e9ba",
    "simhash": "1:cbcbff55fa1a1fcc",
    "word_count": 768
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:18:02.941264+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges WYNN and MARTIN, Mark D., concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. TONY DOUGLAS CALDWELL"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "SMITH, Judge.\nDefendant was convicted of first-degree burglary and sentenced to a minimum of eighty-nine months\u2019 and a maximum of one hundred sixteen months\u2019 active imprisonment, a term within the presumptive range under the Structured Sentencing Act.\nThe circumstances surrounding defendant\u2019s arrest and conviction are not pertinent to the issue raised on appeal and will not be discussed herein. Defendant\u2019s sole argument on appeal is that the trial court abused its discretion by failing to find factors in mitigation for sentencing purposes. Defendant recognizes that the sentence imposed was within the presumptive range under the Structured Sentencing Act, and as such is discretionary with the trial court. See N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 15A-1340.17(c)(2) (Cum. Supp. 1996) (\u201cA presumptive range of minimum durations, if the sentence of imprisonment is neither aggravated or mitigated; any minimum term of imprisonment in that range is permitted . . . .\u201d). However, he contends that because sentences imposed under the Act result in time which will actually be served, the trial court\u2019s discretion should be curtailed. Accordingly, defendant asserts that even when sentencing within the presumptive range, the trial court should be required to take into account evidence of aggravating and/or mitigating factors in imposing sentence. For the following reasons, we find no abuse of discretion by the trial court.\nWe are mindful that by virtue of the recency of the enactment of the Structured Sentencing Act, many of its intricacies will be the subject of much interpretation in the future. However, we also recognize that absent precedent, we are bound by the plain language of the act in determining the legislative intent. \u201cIn matters of statutory construction, the task of the courts is to ensure that the purpose of the Legislature, the legislative intent, is accomplished. The best indicia of that legislative purpose are the language of the act and what the act seeks to accomplish.\u201d Wagoner v. Hiatt, 111 N.C. App. 448, 450, 432 S.E.2d 417, 418 (1993). It is clear from our examination of the language of the Act that the legislature intended the trial court to take into account factors in aggravation and mitigation only when deviating from the presumptive range in sentencing.\nN.C. Gen Stat. \u00a7 15A-1340.13(e) (Cum. Supp. 1996) states that \u201c[t]he court may deviate from the presumptive range of minimum sentences ... if it finds, pursuant to G.S. 15A-1340.16, that aggravating or mitigating circumstances support such a deviation.\u201d Further, N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 15A-1340.16 permits the court to consider evidence of aggravating and/or mitigating factors if appropriate, \u201cbut the decision to depart from the presumptive range is in the discretion of the court.\u201d N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 15A-1340.16(a) (Cum. Supp. 1996). Finally, we note that the court is only required to make written findings in aggravation or mitigation \u201cif, in its discretion, it departs from the presumptive range of sentences . . . N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 15A-1340.16(c) (Cum. Supp. 1996).\nIt is clear from the plain language of these statutes that the Legislature intended to provide the trial court with a window of discretion to be exercised when sentencing a criminal defendant within the presumptive range. It is not the province of this Court to impose the additional requirement that the trial court justify its decision by making findings of aggravation and mitigation subject to appellate review.\nFor these reasons, we find defendant received a fair trial and sentencing, free from prejudicial error.\nNo error.\nJudges WYNN and MARTIN, Mark D., concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "SMITH, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney General Michael F. Easley, by Associate Attorney General Melanie L. Vtipil, for the State.",
      "Public Defender James E. Williams, Jr., by Assistant Public Defender M. Patricia DeVine, for defendant appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. TONY DOUGLAS CALDWELL\nNo. COA96-726\n(Filed 7 January 1997)\nCriminal Law \u00a7 1097 (NCI4th Rev.)\u2014 no abuse of discretion\u2014 first degree burglary \u2014 failure to find factors in mitigation \u2014 Structured Sentencing Act \u2014 legislative intent \u2014 no deviation from presumptive sentencing\nThe trial court did not abuse its discretion by failing to find factors in mitigation for sentencing where the defendant was convicted of first-degree burglary and sentenced to a minimum of eighty-nine months\u2019 and a maximum of one hundred sixteen months\u2019 active imprisonment, a term within the presumptive range under the Structured Sentencing Act. Pursuant to N.C.G.S. \u00a7 15A-1340.13(e) the legislature intended the trial court to take into account factors in aggravation and mitigation only wh\u00e9n deviating from the presumptive range in sentencing.\nAm Jur 2d, Criminal Law \u00a7\u00a7 525 et seq.\nAppeal by defendant from judgment entered 6 December 1995 by Judge Joe Freeman Britt in Orange County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 2 December 1996.\nAttorney General Michael F. Easley, by Associate Attorney General Melanie L. Vtipil, for the State.\nPublic Defender James E. Williams, Jr., by Assistant Public Defender M. Patricia DeVine, for defendant appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0161-01",
  "first_page_order": 199,
  "last_page_order": 201
}