{
  "id": 11356647,
  "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. AARON BERNARD BROWN",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Brown",
  "decision_date": "2001-09-18",
  "docket_number": "No. COA00-1039",
  "first_page": "299",
  "last_page": "302",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "146 N.C. App. 299"
    }
  ],
  "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": "471 S.E.2d 430",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1996,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "432"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "122 N.C. App. 623",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        11919028
      ],
      "year": 1996,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "626"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/122/0623-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 14-7.6",
      "category": "laws:leg_statute",
      "reporter": "N.C. Gen. Stat.",
      "weight": 2,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "543 S.E.2d 144",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 2000,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "parenthetical": "also rejecting double jeopardy challenge to the Violent Habitual Felons Act"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "351 N.C. 368",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        1155648,
        1155842,
        1155834,
        1155719
      ],
      "year": 2000,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "parenthetical": "also rejecting double jeopardy challenge to the Violent Habitual Felons Act"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/351/0368-02",
        "/nc/351/0368-01",
        "/nc/351/0368-03",
        "/nc/351/0368-04"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "523 S.E.2d 734",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1999,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "740"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "136 N.C. App. 235",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        11239132
      ],
      "year": 1999,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "246"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/136/0235-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "484 S.E.2d 818",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1997,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "820",
          "parenthetical": "rejecting double jeopardy challenge to the Violent Habitual Felons Act"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "126 N.C. App. 318",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        11710357
      ],
      "year": 1997,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "321",
          "parenthetical": "rejecting double jeopardy challenge to the Violent Habitual Felons Act"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/126/0318-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "326 S.E.2d 249",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1985,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "253",
          "parenthetical": "holding the Habitual Felons Act alone did not violate double jeopardy"
        },
        {
          "page": "253"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "313 N.C. 110",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        4721300
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1985,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "117",
          "parenthetical": "holding the Habitual Felons Act alone did not violate double jeopardy"
        },
        {
          "page": "117"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/313/0110-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "533 S.E.2d 865",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 2000,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "870"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "139 N.C. App. 544",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        9497226
      ],
      "year": 2000,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "550-51"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/139/0544-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 14-7.1",
      "category": "laws:leg_statute",
      "reporter": "N.C. Gen. Stat.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "462 S.E.2d 683",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1995,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "685",
          "parenthetical": "holding where defendant pleaded guilty to being an habitual felon and did not move in the trial court to withdraw his guilty plea, defendant was not entitled to an appeal of right from the trial court's ruling"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "120 N.C. App. 456",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        11916223
      ],
      "year": 1995,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "459",
          "parenthetical": "holding where defendant pleaded guilty to being an habitual felon and did not move in the trial court to withdraw his guilty plea, defendant was not entitled to an appeal of right from the trial court's ruling"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/120/0456-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 355,
    "char_count": 6160,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.755,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 2.992749347870565e-07,
      "percentile": 0.8518500499449968
    },
    "sha256": "c5e878a89bfc2b56897552daa5d67e404071f854db8cfa476c36d2c42f846387",
    "simhash": "1:eb68e46242aaa690",
    "word_count": 970
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:14:58.205856+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges McGEE and HUDSON concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. AARON BERNARD BROWN"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "WALKER, Judge.\nDefendant appeals his sentence for possession with intent to sell and deliver marijuana which was enhanced as a result of his being an habitual felon. Our review of the record reveals the following: On 16 May 2000, defendant pleaded guilty to possession with intent to sell and deliver marijuana and to being an habitual felon. Prior to the entry of this plea, the defendant moved the trial court to dismiss his habitual felon indictment arguing that the enhancement of his structured sentence through an application of habitual felon status violates his constitutional rights. After the trial court denied defendant\u2019s motion, he proceeded to enter a guilty plea. The trial court then imposed a sentence of 80 to 105 months based on defendant\u2019s status as an habitual felon and a calculated prior record level of IV.\nAt the outset, we note the State has filed a motion to dismiss the appeal contending that the defendant\u2019s entry of a guilty plea precludes his right to raise the constitutional issues presented in his appeal. See N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 15A-1444(e) (1999); see also State v. Young, 120 N.C. App. 456, 459, 462 S.E.2d 683, 685 (1995) (holding where defendant pleaded guilty to being an habitual felon and did not move in the trial court to withdraw his guilty plea, defendant was not entitled to an appeal of right from the trial court\u2019s ruling). In response, the defendant has filed a petition for certiorari. We elect to grant review of the constitutional issue raised in the appeal. See N.C.R. App. P. 21(a)(1) (1999).\nDefendant presents the following constitutional questions: First, whether N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 14-7.1 et. seq. (Habitual Felons Act), when used in conjunction with N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 15A-1340.10 et. seq. (structured sentencing), violates the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and Article I, Section 19 of the North Carolina Constitution by subjecting him to double jeopardy. Second, whether the Habitual Felons Act violates Article I, Section 6 of the North Carolina Constitution by granting to a district attorney the complete discretion to seek an enhancement of a statutorily prescribed sentence. This Court has recently rejected an identical challenge to the Habitual Felons Act as violating Article I, Section 6 of our State\u2019s constitution. See State v. Wilson, 139 N.C. App. 544, 550-51, 533 S.E.2d 865, 870 (2000). Accordingly, we limit our discussion to defendant\u2019s double jeopardy argument.\nOur appellate courts have previously addressed double jeopardy challenges to this State\u2019s Habitual Felons Act. See e.g. State v. Todd, 313 N.C. 110, 117, 326 S.E.2d 249, 253 (1985) (holding the Habitual Felons Act alone did not violate double jeopardy); State v. Mason, 126 N.C. App. 318, 321, 484 S.E.2d 818, 820 (1997) (rejecting double jeopardy challenge to the Violent Habitual Felons Act); State v. Stevenson, 136 N.C. App. 235, 246, 523 S.E.2d 734, 740 (1999), disc. rev. denied, 351 N.C. 368, 543 S.E.2d 144 (2000) (also rejecting double jeopardy challenge to the Violent Habitual Felons Act). Notwithstanding this line of decisions, the defendant argues that the use of the Habitual Felons Act in combination with structured sentencing violates double jeopardy by twice enhancing his sentence. We disagree.\nIn reviewing the combined use of the Habitual Felons Act and structured sentencing, it is apparent our legislature anticipated such an argument as the defendant is now making. The statutory scheme of these statutes ensures that a defendant\u2019s prior convictions will not be used to simultaneously enhance punishment. N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 14-7.6 specifically prohibits the State from using those prior \u201cconvictions used to establish a person\u2019s status as an habitual felon\u201d to determine a defendant\u2019s prior record level for structured sentencing. N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 14-7.6 (1999); see also State v. Bethea, 122 N.C. App. 623, 626, 471 S.E.2d 430, 432 (1996). Additionally, our Supreme Court, in State v. Todd addressed the constitutionality of this State\u2019s Habitual Felons Act and found the law to conform with the constitutional strictures dealing with double jeopardy, cruel and unusual punishment, and equal protection. Todd, 313 N.C. at 117, 326 S.E.2d at 253.\nBased on our review of the record, we find the trial court properly determined defendant\u2019s status as an habitual felon and correctly calculated his prior record level for structured sentencing. Further, neither structured sentencing nor the Habitual Felons Act was used to punish the defendant for his prior convictions. Rather, both laws were used to enhance the defendant\u2019s punishment for his current offense. Therefore, we conclude the Habitual Felons Act used in conjunction with structured sentencing did not violate the defendant\u2019s double jeopardy protections. Any further argument by the defendant regarding the punishment provided by each of these laws should be addressed to the legislature. Defendant\u2019s motion for appropriate relief is denied.\nAffirmed.\nJudges McGEE and HUDSON concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "WALKER, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney General Michael F. Easley, by Assistant Attorney General Amy C. Kunstling, for the State.",
      "Bruce T. Cunningham, Jr. for defendant-appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. AARON BERNARD BROWN\nNo. COA00-1039\n(Filed 18 September 2001)\nSentencing\u2014 double jeopardy \u2014 Habitual Felons Act \u2014 structured sentencing\nThe use of the Habitual Felons Act under N.C.G.S. \u00a7 14-7.1 et. seq. in combination with structured sentencing under N.C.G.S. \u00a7 15A-1340.10 et. seq. to enhance defendant\u2019s sentence for possession with intent to sell and deliver marijuana as a result of his being an habitual felon does not violate double jeopardy because: (1) the statutory scheme of these statutes ensures that a defendant\u2019s prior convictions. will not be used to simultaneously enhance punishment; and (2) the North Carolina Supreme Court has already concluded that our state\u2019s Habitual Felons Act conforms with the constitutional strictures dealing with double jeopardy.\nAppeal by defendant from judgment entered 3 January 2000 by Judge Russell G. Walker, Jr. in Moore County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 15 August 2001.\nAttorney General Michael F. Easley, by Assistant Attorney General Amy C. Kunstling, for the State.\nBruce T. Cunningham, Jr. for defendant-appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0299-01",
  "first_page_order": 331,
  "last_page_order": 334
}