{ "id": 8439717, "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. VERNELLE LAFARRIS BULLOCK, SR.", "name_abbreviation": "State v. Bullock", "decision_date": "2005-07-19", "docket_number": "No. COA04-665", "first_page": "763", "last_page": "767", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "171 N.C. App. 763" } ], "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": "359 N.C. 425", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 3796256 ], "weight": 3, "year": 2005, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "437", "parenthetical": "No. 485PA04" }, { "page": "438-39" }, { "page": "444" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/359/0425-01" ] }, { "cite": "530 U.S. 466", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 9413911 ], "weight": 2, "year": 2000, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "490" }, { "page": "455" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/530/0466-01" ] }, { "cite": "159 L. Ed. 2d 403", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "L. Ed. 2d", "case_ids": [ 5868041 ], "year": 2004, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "412", "parenthetical": "quoting Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 490, 147 L. Ed. 2d 435, 455 (2000)" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/542/0296-01" ] }, { "cite": "438 S.E.2d 751", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1994, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "753" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "113 N.C. App. 415", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8522714 ], "year": 1994, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "417" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/113/0415-01" ] }, { "cite": "559 S.E.2d 1", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 2002, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "3", "parenthetical": "quoting Weston v. Carolina Medicorp, Inc., 113 N.C. App. 415, 417, 438 S.E.2d 751, 753 (1994)" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "148 N.C. App. 304", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 9365693 ], "year": 2002, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "308", "parenthetical": "quoting Weston v. Carolina Medicorp, Inc., 113 N.C. App. 415, 417, 438 S.E.2d 751, 753 (1994)" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/148/0304-01" ] }, { "cite": "575 S.E.2d 520", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 2002, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "356 N.C. 621", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 1511433, 1511435, 1511380, 1511347 ], "year": 2002, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/356/0621-01", "/nc/356/0621-04", "/nc/356/0621-02", "/nc/356/0621-03" ] }, { "cite": "574 S.E.2d 25", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 2002, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "26" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "154 N.C. App. 282", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 9249790 ], "year": 2002, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "283" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/154/0282-01" ] }, { "cite": "157 L. Ed. 2d 231", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "L. Ed. 2d", "year": 2003, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "579 S.E.2d 396", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 2003, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "357 N.C. 64", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 491814, 491399, 491534, 491536, 491446, 491706, 491707 ], "year": 2003, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/357/0064-01", "/nc/357/0064-03", "/nc/357/0064-04", "/nc/357/0064-07", "/nc/357/0064-02", "/nc/357/0064-05", "/nc/357/0064-06" ] }, { "cite": "574 S.E.2d 17", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 2002, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "24" }, { "page": "23" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "154 N.C. App. 234", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 9249594 ], "weight": 3, "year": 2002, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "246" }, { "page": "244" }, { "page": "245-46" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/154/0234-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 470, "char_count": 9198, "ocr_confidence": 0.754, "pagerank": { "raw": 3.0217573180751076e-07, "percentile": 0.8539356927759109 }, "sha256": "6fc97c7f962b029a1d8c07e20983ed33ae82a06cfa9245cbdb37cf044fea485f", "simhash": "1:61315d26e4df3412", "word_count": 1502 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:08:31.744997+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Judges HUDSON and JACKSON concur." ], "parties": [ "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. VERNELLE LAFARRIS BULLOCK, SR." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "MARTIN, Chief Judge.\nOn 28 September 2000, defendant was found guilty by a jury of attempted first degree murder and possession of a firearm by a felon; he thereafter pled guilty to having attained the status of an habitual felon. The charges arose out of an incident occurring on 29 April 2000 when defendant went to the home of his former wife and shot her four times. The trial court entered judgments sentencing defendant to a minimum of 313 months and a maximum of 385 months for attempted first degree murder; and a consecutive sentence, as an habitual felon, of a minimum of 110 months and a maximum of 141 months for possession of a firearm by a felon. Defendant appealed.\nBy an opinion filed 3 December 2002, a panel of this Court found no error with respect to defendant\u2019s conviction of possession of a firearm by a felon and his plea to having attained status as an habitual felon. State v. Bullock, 154 N.C. App. 234, 246, 574 S.E.2d 17, 24 (2002), disc. review denied, 357 N.C. 64, 579 S.E.2d 396, cert. denied, \u2014 U.S. \u2014, 157 L. Ed. 2d 231 (2003). With respect, however, to defendant\u2019s conviction of attempted first degree murder, this Court held that \u201cbecause the indictment lacked the phrase \u2018malice aforethought,\u2019 it failed to properly allege the crime charged.\u201d Bullock, 154 N.C. App. at 244, 574 S.E.2d at 23. Relying on the holding in State v. Rainey, 154 N.C. App. 282, 283, 574 S.E.2d 25, 26, disc. review denied, 356 N.C. 621, 575 S.E.2d 520 (2002), \u201cthat attempted voluntary manslaughter is (1) a crime in North Carolina, and, (2) a lesser-included offense of attempted first-degree murder,\u201d this Court arrested judgment on defendant\u2019s conviction of attempted first degree murder and remanded the case for entry of judgment of guilty of the lesser included offense of attempted voluntary manslaughter, and re-sentencing, since \u201cthe jury found defendant to have been guilty of all elements of attempted first degree murder, including specific intent, but\u201d the indictment failed to support that offense. Bullock, 154 N.C. App. at 245-46, 574 S.E.2d at 24.\nUpon remand, defendant\u2019s trial counsel was permitted to withdraw due to defendant\u2019s dissatisfaction with his services and new counsel was appointed. At defendant\u2019s re-sentencing hearing, the victim testified that as a result of defendant\u2019s attack, she lost permanent sight in her left eye, requiring a prosthesis and preventing her from driving at night; suffers from severe headaches and seizures in her legs; can only open and close her right hand; is unable to cook because she cannot feel her right side and fears burning herself; and has short term memory problems. In addition, she testified that her children have suffered because their father told them that he did not shoot her, and so she had to \u201cbattle with them knowing that I was telling the truth.\u201d\nAfter hearing the evidence, the trial court sentenced defendant\nfor the crime of attempted voluntary manslaughter, Class E offense, however enhanced to the sentence Class C as habitual felon, prior record Level IV. The Court, after reviewing the opinion and the factual basis from the Court of Appeals opinion and hearing from the victim in this case, will elect to find aggravating factor No. 19, the serious and permanent debilitating injury, and would elect under these circumstances to sentence him in the aggravated range to 167 to 210 months. The Court would note that the other sentence ran at the expiration of this sentence. The Court would, of course, give him credit on this first sentence for any time served awaiting this hearing.\nThe trial court entered judgment accordingly, sentencing defendant to a minimum term of 167 months and a maximum term of 210 months, to begin at the expiration of defendant\u2019s sentence as an habitual felon for possession of a firearm by a felon. Defendant again appeals.\nDefendant argues that his conviction for attempted voluntary manslaughter must be vacated because (1) the offense does not exist under North Carolina law, (2) the conviction was not supported by the bill of indictment, (3) the conviction is not supported by the evidence, and (4) the offense was never submitted to a jury. The previous opinion of this Court in this case is dispositive of each of those arguments. \u201cAccording to the doctrine of the law of the case, once an appellate court has ruled on a question, that decision becomes the law of the case and governs the question both in subsequent proceedings in a trial court and on subsequent appeal.\u201d State v. Boyd, 148 N.C. App. 304, 308, 559 S.E.2d 1, 3 (2002) (quoting Weston v. Carolina Medicorp, Inc., 113 N.C. App. 415, 417, 438 S.E.2d 751, 753 (1994)). The previous decision of this Court mandating entry of judgment of conviction of attempted voluntary manslaughter and requiring defendant\u2019s re-sentencing for that offense is the law of the case. Therefore, these assignments of error are overruled.\nDefendant also asserts that his sentence for attempted voluntary manslaughter was enhanced based upon an aggravating factor found by the trial judge by a preponderance of the evidence, rather than by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt, and therefore violates his rights under the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution. In Blakely v. Washington, the United States Supreme Court held that \u201cany fact that increases the penalty for a crime beyond the prescribed statutory maximum must be submitted to a jury and proved beyond a reasonable doubt.\u201d 542 U.S. \u2014, 159 L. Ed. 2d 403, 412 (2004) (quoting Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 490, 147 L. Ed. 2d 435, 455 (2000)). Our North Carolina Supreme Court applied the rule in Blakely to our structured sentencing scheme and determined that \u201cstatutory maximum\u201d is equivalent to \u201cpresumptive range.\u201d State v. Allen, 359 N.C. 425, 437, \u2014 S.E.2d \u2014, \u2014 (July 1, 2005) (No. 485PA04). Further interpreting Blakely, our Supreme Court has held that \u201cthose portions of N.C.G.S. \u00a7 15A-1340.16.(a),(b), and (c) which require trial judges to consider evidence of aggravating factors not found by a jury or admitted by the defendant and which permit imposition of an aggravated sentence upon judicial findings of such aggravating factors by a preponderance of the evidence\u201d violate the Sixth Amendment, id. at 438-39, \u2014 S.E.2d at \u2014, and that such Blakely errors are structural errors and are, therefore, reversible per se. Id. at 444, \u2014 S.E.2d at \u2014. Because defendant\u2019s sentence for attempted voluntary manslaughter was enhanced by an additional 34 and 41 months imprisonment based on the aggravating factor made by the trial court, that \u201cthe victim .of this offense suffered a serious injury that is permanent and debilitating,\u201d we must remand for a new sentencing hearing. In light of our decision, we need not address defendant\u2019s other arguments regarding his re-sentencing.\nRemanded for a new sentencing hearing.\nJudges HUDSON and JACKSON concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "MARTIN, Chief Judge." } ], "attorneys": [ "Roy A. Cooper, III, Attorney General, by Amy C. Kunstling, Assistant Attorney General, for the State.", "Staples Hughes, Appellate Defender, by Daniel R. Pollitt and Kelly D. Miller, Assistant Appellate Defenders, for defendant." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. VERNELLE LAFARRIS BULLOCK, SR.\nNo. COA04-665\n(Filed 19 July 2005)\n1. Homicide\u2014 attempted voluntary manslaughter \u2014 doctrine of law of case\nAlthough defendant contends his conviction for attempted voluntary manslaughter must be vacated based on the fact that the offense does not exist under North Carolina law, the conviction was not supported by the bill of indictment, the conviction was not supported by the evidence, and the offense was never submitted to a jury, the previous opinion of the Court of Appeals in this case is dispositive of each of those arguments based on the doctrine of the law of the case.\n2. Sentencing\u2014 aggravating factor \u2014 victim suffered a serious injury that is permanent and debilitating \u2014 Blakely error\nDefendant\u2019s rights under the Sixth Amendment were violated by the improper enhancement of his sentence for attempted voluntary manslaughter based upon an aggravating factor found by the trial judge by a preponderance of the evidence rather than by \u00e1 jury beyond a reasonable doubt, and this case is remanded for a new sentencing hearing, because: (1) Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. - (2004), provides that any fact that increases the penalty for a crime beyond the prescribed statutory maximum must be submitted to a jury and proved beyond a reasonable doubt; (2) those portions of N.C.G.S. \u00a7 15A-1340.16(a),(b), and (c) which require trial judges to consider evidence of aggravating factors not found by a jury or admitted by defendant and which permit imposition of an aggravated sentence upon judicial findings of such aggravating factors by a preponderance of the evidence violate the Sixth Amendment; and (3) defendant\u2019s sentence was enhanced by an additional 34 and 41 months\u2019 imprisonment based on the aggravating factor found by the trial court that the victim of this offense suffered a serious injury that is permanent and debilitating.\nAppeal by defendant judgment entered 14 July 2003 by Judge Ronald E. Spivey in Guilford County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 7 March 2005.\nRoy A. Cooper, III, Attorney General, by Amy C. Kunstling, Assistant Attorney General, for the State.\nStaples Hughes, Appellate Defender, by Daniel R. Pollitt and Kelly D. Miller, Assistant Appellate Defenders, for defendant." }, "file_name": "0763-01", "first_page_order": 793, "last_page_order": 797 }