{ "id": 8301634, "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. NATHANIEL LEE SIMPSON, Defendant", "name_abbreviation": "State v. Simpson", "decision_date": "2006-03-21", "docket_number": "No. COA05-632", "first_page": "719", "last_page": "724", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "176 N.C. App. 719" } ], "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": "536 U.S. 584", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 1254507 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/us/536/0584-01" ] }, { "cite": "530 U.S. 466", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 9413911 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/us/530/0466-01" ] }, { "cite": "615 S.E.2d 256", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "case_ids": [ 12633238 ], "weight": 7, "year": 2005, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "265" }, { "page": "269" }, { "page": "258", "parenthetical": "internaal citation and quotation omitted" }, { "page": "258" }, { "page": "258" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/se2d/615/0256-01" ] }, { "cite": "455 U.S. 586", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 11306810 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1982, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "587-88", "parenthetical": "holding that where there is no constitutional right to counsel for a discretionary appeal there can be no ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to seek discretionary review" }, { "page": "477-78", "parenthetical": "holding that where there is no constitutional right to counsel for a discretionary appeal there can be no ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to seek discretionary review" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/455/0586-01" ] }, { "cite": "417 U.S. 600", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 1519804 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1974, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "612" }, { "page": "352" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/417/0600-01" ] }, { "cite": "210 Ariz. 589", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ariz.", "case_ids": [ 648506 ], "weight": 2, "year": 2005, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "597", "parenthetical": "holding that \"[c]ounsel's failure to predict future changes in the law, and in particular the Blakely decision, is not ineffective because clairvoyance is not a required attribute of effective representation.\" (citation omitted)" }, { "page": "637", "parenthetical": "holding that \"[c]ounsel's failure to predict future changes in the law, and in particular the Blakely decision, is not ineffective because clairvoyance is not a required attribute of effective representation.\" (citation omitted)" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ariz/210/0589-01" ] }, { "cite": "140 Fed. Appx. 15", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "Fed. Appx.", "year": 2005, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "18", "parenthetical": "holding that even after Apprendi was decided, \"counsel's failure to predict Booker's constitutional and remedial holdings is not objectively unreasonable\"" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "23 P.3d 801", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "P.3d", "case_ids": [ 613036, 613028 ], "year": 2001, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/kan/271/0394-01", "/kan/271/0310-01" ] }, { "cite": "324 S.E.2d 241", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1985, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "312 N.C. 553", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 4753359 ], "year": 1985, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/312/0553-01" ] }, { "cite": "82 L. Ed. 2d 864", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "L. Ed. 2d", "year": 1984, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "467 U.S. 1267", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 6364245 ], "year": 1984, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/467/1267-01" ] }, { "cite": "466 U.S. 668", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 6204802 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1984, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "687" }, { "page": "693" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/466/0668-01" ] }, { "cite": "528 U.S. 259", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 9476301 ], "weight": 2, "year": 2000, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "285" }, { "page": "780" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/528/0259-01" ] }, { "cite": "444 S.E.2d 443", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1994, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "noting that \"final\" meant \"a case in which a judgment of conviction has been rendered, the availability of appeal exhausted, and the time for petition for certiorari elapsed or a petition for certiorari finally denied[.]\" (citation omitted)" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "336 N.C. 508", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 2537813 ], "year": 1994, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "noting that \"final\" meant \"a case in which a judgment of conviction has been rendered, the availability of appeal exhausted, and the time for petition for certiorari elapsed or a petition for certiorari finally denied[.]\" (citation omitted)" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/336/0508-01" ] }, { "cite": "359 N.C. 425", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 3796256 ], "weight": 4, "year": 2005, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "427" }, { "page": "427" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/359/0425-01" ] }, { "cite": "548 S.E.2d 712", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 2001, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "731" }, { "page": "730-31" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "353 N.C. 568", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 135574 ], "weight": 2, "year": 2001, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "596" }, { "page": "596" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/353/0568-01" ] }, { "cite": "159 L. Ed. 2d 403", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "L. Ed. 2d", "case_ids": [ 5868041 ], "weight": 9, "year": 2004, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "303" }, { "page": "413" }, { "page": "413-14" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/542/0296-01" ] }, { "cite": "161 N.C. App. 350", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "year": 2003, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "536 U.S. 584", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 1254507 ], "weight": 4, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "609" }, { "page": "576-77" }, { "page": "609" }, { "page": "576-77" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/536/0584-01" ] }, { "cite": "530 U.S. 466", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 9413911 ], "weight": 8, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "490" }, { "page": "455" }, { "page": "490" }, { "page": "455" }, { "page": "490" }, { "page": "455" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/530/0466-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 604, "char_count": 13760, "ocr_confidence": 0.755, "pagerank": { "raw": 2.414359894512465e-07, "percentile": 0.8003024500656216 }, "sha256": "a0fdbde70f1ec0b4fb2af72a2c09a99fd097e1bdbe33bb49869b5b038e35261c", "simhash": "1:610942285f10fe5c", "word_count": 2249 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:09:49.892129+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Chief Judge MARTIN and Judge STEPHENS concur." ], "parties": [ "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. NATHANIEL LEE SIMPSON, Defendant" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "WYNN, Judge.\nAlthough Blakely errors arising under North Carolina\u2019s Structured Sentencing Act are reversible per se, our Supreme Court in State v. Allen limited the application of this rule to cases that were not final as of 21 July 2005. In this case, Defendant contends the use of a sentencing aggravating factor that was neither submitted to a jury nor stipulated by Defendant constituted a Blakely error. Because Defendant\u2019s case was final as of 23 December 2003, Allen requires us to hold that he is not eligible for a new sentencing hearing.\nThe facts pertinent to this appeal indicate that following Defendant\u2019s pleas\u2019of guilty to burglary, larceny, and habitual felon status, the trial court found as an aggravating factor that the victim was physically infirm. Thereafter, the trial court sentenced Defendant to a single term of imprisonment within the aggravated range for a minimum of 190 months and a maximum of 237 months.\nDefendant appealed to this Court, challenging the evidence to support the trial judge\u2019s finding as an aggravating factor that the victim was physically infirm. In an unpublished opinion filed on 18 November 2003, this Court found no error in Defendant\u2019s trial. State v. Simpson, 161 N.C. App. 350, \u2014 S.E.2d \u2014 (2003).\nSubsequently, Defendant filed a pro se motion for appropriate relief in Superior Court, Martin County, contending the trial court violated his Sixth Amendment right to trial by jury as to the aggravating factor and he received ineffective assistance of counsel due to counsel\u2019s failure to raise these issues at trial and on appeal. On 15 October 2004, the trial judge entered an order denying Defendant\u2019s motion, concluding \u201cas a matter of law that Blakely v. Washington is not retroactive and does not apply to [Defendant\u2019s] case.\u201d Thereafter, Defendant filed a pro se petition for writ of certiorari seeking review of the trial court\u2019s order denying his motion for appropriate relief. On 20 November 2004, this Court allowed Defendant\u2019s petition \u201climited to those issues . . . regarding retroactive application of Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. \u2014, 159 L. Ed. 2d 403 (2004) and possible ineffective assistance of counsel in light of Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 147 L. Ed. 2d 435 (2000).\u201d\nOn appeal, Defendant first contends that because he received an imprisonment sentence based on an aggravated factor neither submitted to a jury nor proved beyond a reasonable doubt, his sentence is in violation of Apprendi v. New Jersey and Blakely v. Washington, and is therefore invalid as a matter of law.\nIn Apprendi v. New Jersey, the United States Supreme Court held that \u201c[o]ther than the fact of a prior conviction, 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.\u201d 530 U.S. 466, 490, 147 L. Ed. 2d 435, 455 (2000). The Supreme Court of North Carolina interpreted Apprendi in State v. Lucas, and held that the statutory maximum for purposes of Apprendi was the longest sentence a defendant could receive at the highest prior record level for a particular class of offense. 353 N.C. 568, 596, 548 S.E.2d 712, 731 (2001), overruled on other grounds by State v. Allen, 359 N.C. 425, 615 S.E.2d 256 (2005).\nThe United States Supreme Court defined statutory maximum for applying the Apprendi rule in Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296, 159 L. Ed. 2d 403 (2004). The Blakely Court held that \u201cthe \u2018statutory maximum\u2019 for Apprendi purposes is the maximum sentence a judge may impose solely on the basis of the facts reflected in the jury verdict or admitted by the defendant.\u201d Blakely, 542 U.S. at 303, 159 L. Ed. 2d at 413. Thus, \u201cthe relevant \u2018statutory maximum\u2019 is not the maximum sentence a judge may impose after finding additional facts, but the maximum he may impose without any additional findings.\u201d Id. at 303-04, 159 L. Ed. 2d at 413-14.\nThe Supreme Court of North Carolina examined the constitutionality of North Carolina\u2019s Structured Sentencing Act in light of Apprendi and Blakely in Allen, 359 N.C. 425, 615 S.E.2d 256. In Allen, our Supreme Court concluded 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 are unconstitutional. Id. at 438-39, 615 S.E.2d at 265. The Court held, \u201cBlakely errors arising under North Carolina\u2019s Structured Sentencing Act are structural and, therefore, reversible per se.\u201d Id. at 444, 615 S.E.2d at 269. However, the Allen Court made clear that its holdings applied only to those cases \u201cin which the defendants have not been indicted as of the certification date of this opinion and to cases that are now pending on direct review or are not yet final.\u201d Id. at 427, 615 S.E.2d at 258 (internaal citation and quotation omitted). The Allen opinion was certified on 21 July 2005.\nIn this case, Defendant pled guilty to burglary, larceny, and habitual felon status, and was sentenced to a single term of imprisonment within the aggravated range based upon the trial judge\u2019s finding the victim was physically infirm. On direct appeal, Defendant challenged the sufficiency of the evidence to support the trial judge\u2019s finding, and this Court filed its opinion affirming the trial court\u2019s judgment on 18 November 2003. Defendant did not seek discretionary review of this Court\u2019s opinion in the Supreme Court of North Carolina. Thus, Defendant\u2019s case became final on 23 December 2003,. the date his time expired for seeking discretionary review of this Court\u2019s opinion. See N.C. R. App. P. 15(b) (providing that the time for filing a petition for discretionary review expires fifteen days after the mandate of this Court has issued); see also State v. Zuniga, 336 N.C. 508, 512 n.1, 444 S.E.2d 443, 445 n.l (1994) (noting that \u201cfinal\u201d meant \u201ca case in which a judgment of conviction has been rendered, the availability of appeal exhausted, and the time for petition for certiorari elapsed or a petition for certiorari finally denied[.]\u201d (citation omitted)). Although this Court allowed Defendant\u2019s petition for writ of certiorari on 30 November 2004, Defendant\u2019s case was pending before this Court on collateral review, not direct review. Because Defendant\u2019s conviction was already final when Allen was certified on 21 July 2005, and our Supreme Court held that Allen only applies to cases that were pending on direct review or were not yet final as of the certification date of the Allen opinion, we find no error in the trial court\u2019s denial of Defendant\u2019s motion for appropriate relief. See Allen, 359 N.C. at 427, 615 S.E.2d at 258.\nIn his final argument on appeal, Defendant contends the trial court erroneously denied his request for a new trial based on ineffective assistance of appellate counsel which violated his constitutional rights. Specifically, Defendant argues that his appellate counsel failed to challenge the constitutionality of the trial court imposing a sentence in excess of the presumptive range that was neither submitted to the jury, nor proved beyond a reasonable doubt in violation of Apprendi, 530 U.S. at 490, 147 L. Ed. 2d at 455, and Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584, 609, 153 L. Ed. 2d 556, 576-77 (2002). Defendant\u2019s arguments are without merit.\nTo show ineffective assistance of appellate counsel, Defendant must meet the same standard for proving ineffective assistance of trial counsel. Smith v. Robbins, 528 U.S. 259, 285, 145 L. Ed. 2d 756, 780 (2000). The United States Supreme Court outlined a two-part test in Strickland v. Washington to determine if an ineffective assistance of counsel claim has merit:\nFirst, the defendant must show that counsel\u2019s performance was deficient. This requires showing that counsel made errors so serious that counsel was not functioning as the \u2018counsel\u2019 guaranteed the defendant by the Sixth Amendment. Second, the defendant must show that the deficient performance prejudiced the defense. This requires showing that counsel\u2019s errors were so serious as to deprive the defendant of a fair trial, a trial whose result is reliable.\nStrickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687, 80 L. Ed. 2d 674, 693, reh\u2019g denied, 467 U.S. 1267, 82 L. Ed. 2d 864 (1984). Our Supreme Court adopted the Strickland test in State v. Braswell, 312 N.C. 553, 324 S.E.2d 241 (1985).\nDefendant contends he received ineffective assistance due to counsel\u2019s failure to raise an issue on appeal based upon Apprendi and Ring. As discussed above, in Apprendi, the United States Supreme Court held that \u201c[o]ther than the fact of a prior conviction, 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.\u201d 530 U.S. at 490, 147 L. Ed. 2d at 455. In Ring, the United States Supreme Court held that the Sixth Amendment requires a jury, not a judge, to find aggravating circumstances necessary to impose the death penalty. 536 U.S. at 609, 153 L. Ed. 2d at 576-77.\nAt the time Defendant filed his direct appeal in this Court on 27 February 2003, the prevailing law in North Carolina and many jurisdictions was that the rules of Apprendi and Ring did not apply to aggravating factors in non-capital cases. See, e.g., Lucas, 353 N.C. at 596, 548 S.E.2d at 730-31; see also Blakely 542 U.S. at \u2014 n.1, 159 L. Ed. 2d at 424 n.l (O\u2019Connor, J., dissenting) (outlining a number of cases concluding that Apprendi did not apply to aggravating factors in non-capital cases). But see State v. Gould, 23 P.3d 801 (Kan. S.C. 2001).\nIn light of the number of arguably reasonable jurists rejecting the notion that Apprendi and Ring had any effect on non-capital sentencing prior to Blakely, we hold that it was well within reason for Defendant\u2019s appellate counsel not to pursue this issue on appeal. Our holding is consistent with other jurisdictions that have found no ineffective assistance of counsel in similar circumstances. See, e.g., United States v. Carew, 140 Fed. Appx. 15, 18 (10th Cir. 2005) (holding that even after Apprendi was decided, \u201ccounsel\u2019s failure to predict Booker\u2019s constitutional and remedial holdings is not objectively unreasonable\u201d); State v. Febles, 210 Ariz. 589, 597, 115 P.3d 629, 637 (2005) (holding that \u201c[c]ounsel\u2019s failure to predict future changes in the law, and in particular the Blakely decision, is not ineffective because clairvoyance is not a required attribute of effective representation.\u201d (citation omitted)); State v. Vlahopoulos, \u2014 Ohio App. 3d \u2014, \u2014 N.E.2d \u2014 (No. 82035) (16 Aug 2005) (holding that \u201c[a]ppellate counsel cannot be required to anticipate future changes in the law and argue such potential changes on appeal.\u201d).\nSimilarly, Defendant\u2019s argument that appellate counsel should have pursued his case through our Supreme Court and to the United States Supreme Court is also without merit. A criminal defendant has no right to counsel past the initial appeal. Ross v. Moffitt, 417 U.S. 600, 612, 41 L. Ed. 2d 341, 352 (1974). Thus, a defendant cannot base an ineffective assistance of counsel claim on the failure of appellate counsel to pursue an appeal past the initial appeal. Wainwright v. Torna, 455 U.S. 586, 587-88, 71 L. Ed. 2d 475, 477-78 (1982) (holding that where there is no constitutional right to counsel for a discretionary appeal there can be no ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to seek discretionary review). Because Defendant\u2019s appellate counsel acted reasonably in not raising an issue under Apprendi and Ring where courts had rejected similar claims, and there is no constitutional right to counsel for a discretionary appeal, Defendant\u2019s assignment of error is rejected.\nAffirmed.\nChief Judge MARTIN and Judge STEPHENS concur.\n. Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296, 159 L. Ed. 2d 403 (2004).\n. 359 N.C. 425, 427, 615 S.E.2d 256, 258 (2005).\n. Although Defendant argued in his motion for appropriate relief that he received ineffective assistance of counsel at the trial and appellate phases of his case, he only argues he received ineffective appellate counsel in his brief.", "type": "majority", "author": "WYNN, Judge." } ], "attorneys": [ "Attorney General Roy Cooper, III, by Assistant Attorney General Kathleen U. Baldwin and Assistant Attorney General Robert G. Montgomery, for the State.", "M. Gordon Widenhouse, Jr., for defendant-appellant." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. NATHANIEL LEE SIMPSON, Defendant\nNo. COA05-632\n(Filed 21 March 2006)\n1. Sentencing\u2014 Blakely error \u2014 case final before effective date of rule\nThe trial court\u2019s imposition of an aggravated sentence upon defendant based upon an aggravating factor found by the trial court and not submitted to the jury did not entitle defendant to appropriate relief where his case was final as of 23 December 2003; Blakely errors are limited to cases that were not final as of 21 July 2005.\n2. Constitutional Law\u2014 effective assistance of counsel\u2014 issue not raised on appeal\nDefendant received effective assistance of appellate counsel even though his counsel did not challenge his sentence for error under Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, and Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584, because, at the time, the prevailing law in North Carolina and many jurisdictions was that there was no applicability to noncapital cases. Moreover, a criminal defendant has no right to counsel past the initial appeal; defendant\u2019s argument that counsel should have pursued the cas\u00e9 through the state and federal Supreme Courts is without merit.\nOn a writ of certiorari from order entered 15 October 2004 by Judge William C. Griffin, Jr. in Superior Court, Martin County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 20 February 2006.\nAttorney General Roy Cooper, III, by Assistant Attorney General Kathleen U. Baldwin and Assistant Attorney General Robert G. Montgomery, for the State.\nM. Gordon Widenhouse, Jr., for defendant-appellant." }, "file_name": "0719-01", "first_page_order": 751, "last_page_order": 756 }