{ "id": 8997424, "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. CARL HARRISON", "name_abbreviation": "State v. Harrison", "decision_date": "2004-07-06", "docket_number": "No. COA03-1362", "first_page": "332", "last_page": "336", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "165 N.C. App. 332" } ], "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": "27 S.E.2d 140", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1943, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "142" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "223 N.C. 415", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8610537 ], "year": 1943, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "418" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/223/0415-01" ] }, { "cite": "497 S.E.2d 416", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 1998, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "419", "parenthetical": "quoting State v. Gregory, 223 N.C. 415, 418, 27 S.E.2d 140, 142 (1943)" }, { "page": "419" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "128 N.C. App. 688", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 11656579 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1998, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "691", "parenthetical": "quoting State v. Gregory, 223 N.C. 415, 418, 27 S.E.2d 140, 142 (1943)" }, { "page": "691" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/128/0688-01" ] }, { "cite": "323 S.E.2d 343", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1984, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "346", "parenthetical": "citing 41 Am. Jur. 2d, Indictments and Informations \u00a7 68 (1968)" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "312 N.C. 432", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 4756963 ], "year": 1984, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "435", "parenthetical": "citing 41 Am. Jur. 2d, Indictments and Informations \u00a7 68 (1968)" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/312/0432-01" ] }, { "cite": "N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 15-153", "category": "laws:leg_statute", "reporter": "N.C. Gen. Stat.", "year": 2003, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "476 S.E.2d 128", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1996, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "344 N.C. 441", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 867651, 867654, 867697, 867640, 867551 ], "year": 1996, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/344/0441-03", "/nc/344/0441-04", "/nc/344/0441-05", "/nc/344/0441-02", "/nc/344/0441-01" ] }, { "cite": "472 S.E.2d 191", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1996, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "192-93" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "123 N.C. App. 156", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 11912347 ], "year": 1996, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "158" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/123/0156-01" ] }, { "cite": "589 S.E.2d 356", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 2003, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "357 N.C. 580", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 491655, 491400, 491788, 491695, 491634, 491828, 491637, 491894, 491546 ], "year": 2003, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/357/0580-06", "/nc/357/0580-05", "/nc/357/0580-08", "/nc/357/0580-09", "/nc/357/0580-04", "/nc/357/0580-02", "/nc/357/0580-03", "/nc/357/0580-01", "/nc/357/0580-07" ] }, { "cite": "585 S.E.2d 257", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 2003, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "264" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "160 N.C. App. 150", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8954749 ], "year": 2003, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "160" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/160/0150-01" ] }, { "cite": "N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 14-415.1", "category": "laws:leg_statute", "reporter": "N.C. Gen. Stat.", "weight": 2, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "(a)" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "233 S.E.2d 585", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1977, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "588" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "292 N.C. 431", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8569971 ], "year": 1977, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "435" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/292/0431-01" ] }, { "cite": "N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 14.208.6", "category": "laws:leg_statute", "reporter": "N.C. Gen. Stat.", "year": 2003, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 14-208.7", "category": "laws:leg_statute", "reporter": "N.C. Gen. Stat.", "year": 2003, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "(a)" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "562 S.E.2d 26", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 2002, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "30" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "149 N.C. App. 572", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 9130206 ], "year": 2002, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "577" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/149/0572-01" ] }, { "cite": "N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 14-208.11", "category": "laws:leg_statute", "reporter": "N.C. Gen. Stat.", "weight": 2, "year": 2003, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "\"A person required by this Article to register who does any of the following is guilty of a Class F felony . . . .\"" } ], "opinion_index": 0 } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 509, "char_count": 9300, "ocr_confidence": 0.759, "pagerank": { "raw": 9.121229291908879e-08, "percentile": 0.5070731922980838 }, "sha256": "dc213b4f2a3d578d2a345aec8573dd122ea3e470971881576e436fa1b942d95c", "simhash": "1:434b4ea19731a9d3", "word_count": 1520 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:46:04.930387+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Judges BRYANT and STEELMAN concur." ], "parties": [ "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. CARL HARRISON" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "TYSON, Judge.\nCarl Harrison (\u201cdefendant\u201d) appeals from a judgment entered after he entered a guilty plea of failing to register as a sex offender. We affirm.\nI. Background\nOn 13 March 1992, defendant entered a guilty plea to the charge of second-degree rape and was sentenced to fifteen years active imprisonment. Upon release from prison on 25 April 1997, defendant was required to register as a sex offender. On 28 April 1997, defendant appeared at the Mecklenburg County Sheriffs Office, registered his address at his mother\u2019s house on Markland Drive, Apartment B, in Charlotte, North Carolina, and signed a document, in which he acknowledged a duty to inform the Sheriff of any change of address within ten days. Defendant\u2019s mother suffered a stroke and became very ill. After several hospitalizations, she lost her home. Defendant became homeless and began staying in shelters.\nOn 20 March 2002, a Mecklenburg County Sheriff\u2019s Deputy visited the address at Markland Drive to verify defendant\u2019s residence. The current occupant informed the deputy that she had been residing in the house since May 2001 and did not know defendant. Defendant was arrested on 10 September 2002 and entered a guilty plea for his failure to register as a sex offender on 20 May 2003, reserving his right to appeal the issues below.\nII. Issues\nThe issues presented are whether: (1) the trial court erred in calculating defendant\u2019s prior record level by including his conviction of second-degree rape; and (2) the indictment was insufficient to support the offense of which defendant was convicted.\nIII. Prior Record Level\nDefendant argues the trial court violated the Structured Sentencing Act and his right to be protected against double jeopardy by including his conviction for second-degree rape in calculating his prior record level for sentencing. We disagree.\nN.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 14-208.11 (2003) states:\n(a) A person required by this Article to register who does any of the following is guilty of a Class F felony:\n(2) Fails to notify the last registering sheriff of a change of address.\nDefendant does not challenge his conviction of violating this statute. Defendant argues his conviction for second-degree rape is an element of the offense at bar, which precludes the trial court from using this conviction in determining his record level during sentencing.\n\u201cTo meet its burden under \u00a7 14-208.11(a)(2), the State must prove that: 1) the defendant is a sex offender who is required to register; and 2) that defendant failed to notify the last registering sheriff of a change of address.\u201d State v. Holmes, 149 N.C. App. 572, 577, 562 S.E.2d 26, 30 (2002). To establish the first element, the State must prove that defendant is a State resident and that he has a \u201creportable conviction.\u201d N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 14-208.7(a) (2003). N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 14.208.6 (2003) classifies second-degree rape as a \u201creportable conviction.\u201d\nDefendant contends being a sexual offender is similar to being an habitual felon and the trial court is precluded from using the sexual offense in calculating his prior convictions. We disagree. \u201cBeing an habitual felon is not a crime but is a status the attaining of which subjects a person thereafter convicted of a crime to an increased punishment for that crime. The status itself, standing alone, will not support a criminal sentence.\u201d State v. Allen, 292 N.C. 431, 435, 233 S.E.2d 585, 588 (1977). Failing to register as a sexual offender, however, is not a status but constitutes a separate crime. See N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 14-208.11 (\u201cA person required by this Article to register who does any of the following is guilty of a Class F felony . . . .\u201d).\nThe State argues that defendant\u2019s conviction of second-degree rape is not an element of the offense charged, but is analogous to a conviction for the offense of possession of a firearm by a felon in violation of N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 14-415.1. Under this statute, it is unlawful for \u201cany person who has been convicted of a felony to purchase, own, possess, or have in his custody, care, or control any handgun or other firearm with a barrel length of less than 18 inches or an overall length of less than 26 inches . . . .\u201d N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 14-415.1(a) (2003). In State v. Glasco, we explicitly rejected defendant\u2019s argument that \u201cthe indictment violates his constitutional rights by utilizing the same felony charge as the basis for his underlying conviction for possession of a firearm by a convicted felon and as one of the three underlying felonies used to elevate him to habitual felon status.\u201d 160 N.C. App. 150, 160, 585 S.E.2d 257, 264, disc. rev. denied, 357 N.C. 580, 589 S.E.2d 356 (2003). We held, \u201c[o]ur courts have determined that elements used to establish an underlying conviction may also be used to establish a defendant\u2019s status as a[n] habitual felon.\u201d Id. (citing State v. Misenheimer, 123 N.C. App. 156, 158, 472 S.E.2d 191, 192-93 (1996), cert. denied, 344 N.C. 441, 476 S.E.2d 128 (1996)).\nFollowing this reasoning, we hold defendant was not subjected to double jeopardy by including his conviction of second-degree rape in calculating his prior record level. This assignment of error is overruled.\nIV. Indictment\nDefendant argues the indictment fails to indicate defendant\u2019s new address, does not provide adequate notice to enable him to prepare his defense, is fatally defective, and requires his conviction be vacated. We disagree.\nN.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 15-153 (2003) provides:\nEvery criminal proceeding by warrant, indictment, information, or impeachment is sufficient in form for all intents and purposes if it express the charge against the defendant in a plain, intelligible, and explicit manner; and the same shall not be quashed, nor the judgment thereon stayed, by reason of any informality or refinement, if in the bill or proceeding, sufficient matter appears to enable the court to proceed to judgment.\n\u201cIt is generally held that the language in a statutorily prescribed form of criminal pleading is sufficient if the act or omission is clearly set forth so that a person of common understanding may know what is intended.\u201d State v. Coker, 312 N.C. 432, 435, 323 S.E.2d 343, 346 (1984) (citing 41 Am. Jur. 2d, Indictments and Informations \u00a7 68 (1968)). \u201cA defect in an indictment is considered fatal if it \u2018wholly fails to charge some offense ... or fails to state some essential and necessary element of the offense of which the defendant is found guilty.\u2019 \u201d State v. Wilson, 128 N.C. App. 688, 691, 497 S.E.2d 416, 419 (1998) (quoting State v. Gregory, 223 N.C. 415, 418, 27 S.E.2d 140, 142 (1943)).\nDefendant\u2019s indictment clearly charges him with \u201cFailing to Register As A Sexual Offender G.S. 14-208.11.\u201d The indictment states:\nTHE JURORS FOR THE STATE UPON THEIR OATH PRESENT that on or about the 20th day of March, 2002, in Mecklenburg County, Carl Rayfette Harrison did unlawfully, willfully and feloniously as a person required by Article 27A of Chapter 14 of the General Statutes of North Carolina to register as a sexual offender, knowingly and with the intent to violate the provisions of said Article, fail to register as a sexual offender in that said defendant, a Mecklenburg County, North Carolina resident, changed his address and failed to provide written notice of his new address no later than ten (10) days after the change to the Sheriffs Office in the county with whom he had last registered.\nThe indictment sufficiently states with particularity the violation of which defendant was charged. The indictment clearly states the elements \u201cof the offense of which the defendant is found guilty.\u201d Wilson, 128 N.C. App. at 691, 497 S.E.2d at 419. Defendant\u2019s argument that the indictment\u2019s failure to identify specific dates he moved and the identification of his new address is without merit. This assignment of error is overruled.\nV. Conclusion\nThe trial court did not err by including defendant\u2019s conviction of second-degree rape in calculating his prior record level during sentencing. The indictment at bar provided defendant with ample notice of the charge to allow him to adequately prepare a defense for trial. The trial court\u2019s judgment is affirmed.\nAffirmed.\nJudges BRYANT and STEELMAN concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "TYSON, Judge." } ], "attorneys": [ "Attorney General Roy Cooper, by Assistant Attorney General Lorrin Freeman, for the State.", "Michelle FormyDuval-Lynch, for defendant-appellant." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. CARL HARRISON\nNo. COA03-1362\n(Filed 6 July 2004)\n1. Constitutional Law\u2014 double jeopardy \u2014 failure to register as sex offender \u2014 prior record \u2014 inclusion of underlying rape\nDefendant was not subjected to double jeopardy by the inclusion of the underlying second-degree rape conviction-in his prior record level during his sentencing for failing to register as a sex offender.\n2. Sexual Offenses\u2014 failing to register as a sex offender\u2014 indictment \u2014 elements of offense\nAn indictment against a homeless defendant for failing to register as a sex offender was sufficient where it clearly stated the elements of the offense. The argument that the indictment failed by not identifying the specific dates defendant moved and his new addresses is without merit.\nAppeal by defendant from judgment entered 20 May 2003 by Judge Nathaniel J. Poovey in Mecklenburg County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 9 June 2004.\nAttorney General Roy Cooper, by Assistant Attorney General Lorrin Freeman, for the State.\nMichelle FormyDuval-Lynch, for defendant-appellant." }, "file_name": "0332-01", "first_page_order": 364, "last_page_order": 368 }