{ "id": 8375332, "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. DAVID ALAN BRADLEY", "name_abbreviation": "State v. Bradley", "decision_date": "2007-02-06", "docket_number": "No. COA06-671", "first_page": "557", "last_page": "562", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "181 N.C. App. 557" } ], "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": "530 U.S. 466", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 9413911 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/us/530/0466-01" ] }, { "cite": "635 S.E.2d 455", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "case_ids": [ 12636796 ], "year": 2006, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "462", "parenthetical": "citing N.C. Const. art. I, \u00a7 24; N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 15A-1237(b) (2005)" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/se2d/635/0455-01" ] }, { "cite": "635 S.E.2d 528", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "case_ids": [ 12636813 ], "weight": 2, "year": 2006, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "531", "parenthetical": "internal citations omitted" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/se2d/635/0528-01" ] }, { "cite": "617 S.E.2d 662", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "case_ids": [ 12633744, 12633741, 12633742, 12633743 ], "year": 2005, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/se2d/617/0662-04", "/se2d/617/0662-01", "/se2d/617/0662-02", "/se2d/617/0662-03" ] }, { "cite": "625 S.E.2d 790", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "case_ids": [ 12635079 ], "year": 2006, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "791-92", "parenthetical": "\"Although DOC included a reference to the assignments of error in its brief, it did not reference the pertinent page numbers of the record on appeal.\"" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/se2d/625/0790-01" ] }, { "cite": "470 S.E.2d 16", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 1996, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "24", "parenthetical": "emphasis added" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "343 N.C. 202", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 798768 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1996, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "215" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/343/0202-01" ] }, { "cite": "179 N.C. App. 710", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8239153 ], "year": 2006, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "719", "parenthetical": "citing N.C. Const. art. I, \u00a7 24; N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 15A-1237(b) (2005)" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/179/0710-01" ] }, { "cite": "74 L. Ed. 2d 513", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "L. Ed. 2d", "weight": 2, "year": 1982, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "459 U.S. 1018", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 6468801, 6468547, 6469476, 6468711, 6469608, 6469353, 6468967, 6468624, 6468240, 6468465, 6469044, 6468343, 6469144, 6469246 ], "year": 1982, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/459/1018-07", "/us/459/1018-04", "/us/459/1018-13", "/us/459/1018-06", "/us/459/1018-14", "/us/459/1018-12", "/us/459/1018-08", "/us/459/1018-05", "/us/459/1018-01", "/us/459/1018-03", "/us/459/1018-09", "/us/459/1018-02", "/us/459/1018-10", "/us/459/1018-11" ] }, { "cite": "676 F.2d 995", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "F.2d", "case_ids": [ 562145 ], "weight": 2, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "1002" }, { "page": "1002" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/f2d/676/0995-01" ] }, { "cite": "300 S.E.2d 375", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1983, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "378", "parenthetical": "quoting United States v. McCaskill, 676 F.2d 995, 1002 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1018, 74 L. Ed. 2d 513 (1982)" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "307 N.C. 655", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8565416 ], "year": 1983, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "660", "parenthetical": "quoting United States v. McCaskill, 676 F.2d 995, 1002 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1018, 74 L. Ed. 2d 513 (1982)" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/307/0655-01" ] }, { "cite": "535 S.E.2d 94", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 2000, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "103" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "139 N.C. App. 657", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 9497619 ], "year": 2000, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "672" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/139/0657-01" ] }, { "cite": "N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 20-138.1", "category": "laws:leg_statute", "reporter": "N.C. Gen. Stat.", "year": 2005, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "(a)" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "179 N.C. App. 803", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8239777 ], "weight": 2, "year": 2006, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "808" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/179/0803-01" ] }, { "cite": "154 L. Ed. 2d 51", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "L. Ed. 2d", "year": 2002, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "537 U.S. 833", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 9206784, 9206433, 9206402, 9206337, 9206560, 9206598, 9206247, 9206728, 9206279, 9206636, 9206679, 9206842, 9206523, 9206492 ], "year": 2002, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/537/0833-13", "/us/537/0833-05", "/us/537/0833-04", "/us/537/0833-03", "/us/537/0833-08", "/us/537/0833-09", "/us/537/0833-01", "/us/537/0833-12", "/us/537/0833-02", "/us/537/0833-10", "/us/537/0833-11", "/us/537/0833-14", "/us/537/0833-07", "/us/537/0833-06" ] }, { "cite": "559 S.E.2d 794", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 2002, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "355 N.C. 222", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 219970, 220069, 220081, 220021, 220031 ], "year": 2002, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/355/0222-03", "/nc/355/0222-02", "/nc/355/0222-01", "/nc/355/0222-04", "/nc/355/0222-05" ] }, { "cite": "552 S.E.2d 697", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 3, "year": 2001, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "699", "parenthetical": "internal quotation marks and citations omitted" }, { "parenthetical": "emphasis added" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "146 N.C. App. 381", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 11357803 ], "year": 2001, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/146/0381-01" ] }, { "cite": "N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 20-138.5", "category": "laws:leg_statute", "reporter": "N.C. Gen. Stat.", "year": 2005, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "(a)" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "542 U.S. 296", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 5868041 ], "weight": 2, "year": 2004, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/542/0296-01" ] }, { "cite": "536 U.S. 584", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 1254507 ], "weight": 2, "year": 2002, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/536/0584-01" ] }, { "cite": "359 N.C. 643", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 3795078, 3800872, 3801711, 3798065, 3802421, 3795157 ], "year": 2005, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/359/0643-04", "/nc/359/0643-03", "/nc/359/0643-05", "/nc/359/0643-02", "/nc/359/0643-06", "/nc/359/0643-01" ] }, { "cite": "511 S.E.2d 298", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1999, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "299" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "350 N.C. 64", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 131998 ], "year": 1999, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "65" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/350/0064-01" ] }, { "cite": "610 S.E.2d 360", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "pin_cites": [ { "page": "360" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "359 N.C. 400", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 3799435 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "401" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/359/0400-01" ] }, { "cite": "176 N.C. App. 123", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8300854 ], "year": 2006, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "125", "parenthetical": "\"Although DOC included a reference to the assignments of error in its brief, it did not reference the pertinent page numbers of the record on appeal.\"" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/176/0123-01" ] }, { "cite": "530 U.S. 466", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 9413911 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/530/0466-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 707, "char_count": 12663, "ocr_confidence": 0.743, "pagerank": { "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08, "percentile": 0.2032006499220611 }, "sha256": "6c6f84496e037d191cf97f169c6b13547dbea400df5789baf4e201b0ab51f085", "simhash": "1:752f566cf34fad9e", "word_count": 1997 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:19:54.793724+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Judges CALABRIA and GEER concur." ], "parties": [ "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. DAVID ALAN BRADLEY" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "JACKSON, Judge.\nOn 25 July 2001, Sergeant James Christopher McClelland (\u201cSergeant McClelland\u201d), a sixteen-year veteran of the North Carolina Highway Patrol, observed David Alan Bradley (\u201cdefendant\u201d) turning left from a crossover onto U.S. 74 East. Sergeant McClelland noted that defendant\u2019s \u201cturn was so wide that he [defendant] went across that lane to the outside lane, almost went off the right side of the road, and he jerked it back.\u201d Sergeant McClelland further testified that defendant\u2019s vehicle crossed the fog line while turning onto U.S. 74. After following defendant\u2019s vehicle for approximately three-tenths of a mile and observing defendant driving erratically and weaving in his lane, Sergeant McClelland activated his blue lights.\nDefendant pulled his vehicle into a mall parking lot, and Sergeant McClelland approached defendant\u2019s vehicle and requested defendant\u2019s license and registration. Defendant was unable to produce a driver\u2019s license. Sergeant McClelland then asked defendant to step out of his vehicle, whereupon Sergeant McClelland noticed that defendant had red, glassy eyes and a strong odor of alcohol on his breath. Sergeant McClelland requested that defendant take a seat in the patrol car and perform several field sobriety tests, including an AlcoSensor test and a horizontal gaze nystagmus test.\nBased upon his observations, Sergeant McClelland formed the opinion that defendant \u201chad consumed an [sic] sufficient amount of an alcoholic beverage as to appreciatively impair his mental and physical faculties,\u201d and thus, Sergeant McClelland placed defendant under arrest. At the Law Enforcement Center, defendant was advised of his Intoxilyzer rights, and defendant exercised his right to make a telephone call. After waiting the required thirty minutes, Sergeant McClelland administered the Intoxilyzer test, which resulted in a breath-alcohol concentration of 0.16.\nOn 14 March 2005, defendant was indicted for habitual impaired driving. Prior to trial, defendant made a motion to dismiss the indictment on double jeopardy grounds. The trial court denied the motion on 12 July 2005, and the jury found defendant guilty on 16 January 2006. On 19 January 2006, the trial court sentenced defendant, as a prior record level II offender, to a minimum of fifteen months imprisonment with a corresponding maximum of eighteen months. Defendant filed timely notice of appeal.\nAs a preliminary matter, we note that defendant\u2019s brief violates Rule 28(b)(6) of the North Carolina Rules of Appellate Procedure. Specifically, defendant has failed to identify his assignments of errors \u201cby the pages at which they appear in the printed record on appeal.\u201d N.C. R. App. P. 28(b)(6) (2006); see, e.g., Perry v. N.C. Dep\u2019t of Corr., 176 N.C. App. 123, 125, 625 S.E.2d 790, 791-92 (2006) (\u201cAlthough DOC included a reference to the assignments of error in its brief, it did not reference the pertinent page numbers of the record on appeal.\u201d). Although the assignments of error can be found on pages twenty-three to twenty-four of the record, the appellate rules expressly require the appellant to direct this Court\u2019s attention to the pages in the record. \u201cThe North Carolina Rules of Appellate Procedure are mandatory and \u2018failure to follow these rules will subject an appeal to dismissal.\u2019\u201d Viar v. N.C. Dep\u2019t of Transp., 359 N.C. 400, 401, 610 S.E.2d 360, 360 (per curiam) (quoting Steingress v. Steingress, 350 N.C. 64, 65, 511 S.E.2d 298, 299 (1999)), reh\u2019g denied, 359 N.C. 643, 617 S.E.2d 662 (2005). Nevertheless, we conclude that defendant\u2019s violation is not so egregious as to warrant dismissal or sanctions.\nOn appeal, defendant first contends that the offense of habitual impaired driving violates the prohibition against double jeopardy as a result of the United States Supreme Court\u2019s decisions in Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 147 L. Ed. 2d 435 (2000), Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584, 153 L. Ed. 2d 556 (2002), and Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296, 159 L. Ed. 2d 403 (2004). We disagree.\n\u201cA person commits the offense of habitual impaired driving if he drives while impaired as defined in [North Carolina General Statutes, section] 20-138.1 and has been convicted of three or more offenses involving impaired driving as defined in [section] 20-4.01(24a) within seven years of the date of this offense.\u201d N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 20-138.5(a) (2005). The habitual impaired driving statute is intended to provide an increased sentence for someone convicted of a fourth impaired driving offense, with the previous three offenses occurring within seven years of the fourth offense.\nIn 2001, this Court upheld the habitual impaired driving statute against a double jeopardy challenge. State v. Vardiman, 146 N.C. App. 381, 552 S.E.2d 697 (2001), appeal dismissed, 355 N.C. 222, 559 S.E.2d 794, cert. denied, 537 U.S. 833, 154 L. Ed. 2d 51 (2002). In Vardiman, this Court noted that \u201c[i]t is well settled that the Double Jeopardy Clause of the North Carolina and United States Constitutions protect against. . . multiple punishments for the same offense.\u201d Id. at 383, 552 S.E.2d at 699 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). Recidivist statutes, such as habitual impaired driving, \u201csurvive constitutional challenges in regard to double jeopardy challenges because they increase the severity of the punishment for the crime being prosecuted; they do not punish a previous crime a second time.\" Id. (emphasis added).\nDefendant nevertheless argues that \u201cthe underpinning of the majority opinion in Vardiman that Habitual DWI is both a crime and a sentence enhancer has been removed by the Apprendi/ Ring/Blakely line of cases and that Vardiman is no longer good law.\u201d Vardiman was decided after the United States Supreme Court\u2019s opinion in Apprendi was filed, and this Court noted that Apprendi did not alter its conclusion that the habitual impaired driving statute survived a double jeopardy challenge. In addition, we recently addressed a similar double jeopardy challenge with respect to habitual misdemeanor assault in State v. Massey, 179 N.C. App. 803, 635 S.E.2d 528 (2006). In Massey, we held that\n[although defendant contends that the Apprendi line of cases renders habitual misdemeanor assault unconstitutional as viola-tive of the prohibition against double jeopardy, defendant reads too much into Apprendi and its progeny. Blakely explicitly permits sentence enhancements provided that sentence enhancements, with the exception of prior convictions, are found beyond a reasonable doubt by the jury. In fact, the United States Supreme Court expressly permitted sentence enhancements imposed by a judge when the defendant stipulates to the relevant facts or consents to judicial fact-finding. As the North Carolina Supreme Court noted, the crux of Blakely was to eliminate fact finding by the court that increased a defendant\u2019s sentence beyond the statutory maximum. In essence, Apprendi and Blakely applied the Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial to sentence enhancements. Defendant\u2019s argument, however, is directed at the Fifth Amendment prohibition against double jeopardy, and accordingly, Apprendi and Blakely are inapposite.\nMassey, 179 N.C. App. at 808, 635 S.E.2d at 531 (internal citations omitted) (emphases in original). This Court refused to extend the holdings in Apprendi and Blakely to the habitual misdemeanor assault statute. Similarly, we refuse to extend those holdings to the habitual impaired driving statute. Accordingly, defendant\u2019s assignment of error is overruled.\nIn his second argument, defendant contends that the trial court erred by submitting a verdict sheet to the jury which did not differentiate between the two statutory definitions of the offense of impaired driving. Specifically, North Carolina General Statutes, section 20-138.1, provides that\n[a] person commits the offense of impaired driving if he drives any vehicle upon any highway, any street, or any public vehicular area within this State:\n(1) While under the influence of an impairing substance; or\n(2) After having consumed sufficient alcohol that he has, at any relevant time after the driving, an alcohol concentration of 0.08 or more.\nN.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 20-138.1(a) (2005). Because the verdict sheet did not specify which definition of impaired driving applied, defendant contends that the verdict sheet was ambiguous and therefore deprived him of his constitutionally protected right to a unanimous jury verdict. We disagree.\nBecause defendant did not object to the jury verdict sheet as submitted, we review defendant\u2019s argument under the plain error rule. See State v. Gilbert, 139 N.C. App. 657, 672, 535 S.E.2d 94, 103 (2000). Therefore, defendant must demonstrate\nthat the claimed error is a \u201cfundamental error, something so basic, so prejudicial, so lacking in its elements that justice cannot have been done,\u201d or \u201cwhere [the error] is grave error which amounts to a denial of a fundamental right of the accused,\u201d or the error has \u201c \u2018resulted in a miscarriage of justice or in the denial to appellant of a fair trial\u2019 \u201d or where the error is such as to \u201cseriously affect the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings\u201d or where it can be fairly said \u201cthe instructional mistake had a probable impact on the jury\u2019s finding that the defendant was guilty.\u201d\nState v. Odom, 307 N.C. 655, 660, 300 S.E.2d 375, 378 (1983) (quoting United States v. McCaskill, 676 F.2d 995, 1002 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1018, 74 L. Ed. 2d 513 (1982)). We note further that \u201c[t]he plain error rule ... is always to be applied cautiously.\u201d Id. (quoting McCaskill, 676 F.2d at 1002).\n\u201cThe North Carolina Constitution and the North Carolina General Statutes both require an unanimous verdict in a criminal jury trial.\u201d State v. Wallace, 179 N.C. App. 710, 719, 635 S.E.2d 455, 462 (2006) (citing N.C. Const. art. I, \u00a7 24; N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 15A-1237(b) (2005)). Defendant contends that his right to a unanimous jury verdict was violated because it is possible that some members of the jury found him guilty of impaired driving based on his being under the influence of an impairing substance, while other members of the jury might have based their decision on testimony indicating that defendant\u2019s alcohol concentration was 0.16, in excess of the 0.08 concentration delineated in the second prong of the impaired driving statutory definition.\nIn State v. Oliver, 343 N.C. 202, 470 S.E.2d 16 (1996), our Supreme Court held that\n[e]ven accepting defendant\u2019s argument as true, that some jurors may have found defendant was under the influence of an impairing substance and that some jurors may have found defendant\u2019s alcohol concentration was 0.08 or more at some relevant time after driving, the fact remains that jurors unanimously found defendant guilty of the single offense of impaired driving.\nOliver, 343 N.C. at 215, 470 S.E.2d at 24 (emphasis added). Here, defendant was charged with a single wrong that could be established alternatively through either of its elements, and thus, we find no error in the verdict sheet employed by the trial court. Accordingly, defendant\u2019s assignment of error is overruled.\nDefendant\u2019s remaining assignments of error not argued in his brief are deemed abandoned. See N.C. R. App. P. 28(b)(6) (2006).\nNO ERROR.\nJudges CALABRIA and GEER concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "JACKSON, Judge." } ], "attorneys": [ "Attorney General Roy A. Cooper, III, by Assistant Attorney General Patricia A. Duffy, for the State.", "Bruce T. Cunningham, Jr., for defendant-appellant." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. DAVID ALAN BRADLEY\nNo. COA06-671\n(Filed 6 February 2007)\n1. Appeal and Error\u2014 assignments of error \u2014 record page references omitted \u2014 Rules violation not egregious\nViolations of the Rules of Appellate Procedure involving the identification of assignments of errors by their record page numbers were -not so egregious as to warrant dismissal or sanctions.\n2. Sentencing\u2014 habitual impaired driving \u2014 no double jeopardy violation\nHabitual impaired driving does not violate double jeopardy under Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466. Apprendi and Blakely involve the right to a jury rather than double jeopardy.\n3. Criminal Law\u2014 verdict sheet with alternate definitions of crime \u2014 one offense\nThere was no error in the submission of an impaired driving verdict sheet which did not specify which of two statutory definitions of impaired driving applied (being under the influence or blood alcohol level). Defendant was charged with a single wrong which could be established alternatively.\nAppeal by defendant from judgment entered 19 January 2006 by Judge Robert C. Ervin in Cleveland County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 11 January 2007.\nAttorney General Roy A. Cooper, III, by Assistant Attorney General Patricia A. Duffy, for the State.\nBruce T. Cunningham, Jr., for defendant-appellant." }, "file_name": "0557-01", "first_page_order": 589, "last_page_order": 594 }