{ "id": 4168838, "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. MICHAEL ANTHONY BOHLER", "name_abbreviation": "State v. Bohler", "decision_date": "2009-08-04", "docket_number": "No. COA08-1515", "first_page": "631", "last_page": "638", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "198 N.C. App. 631" } ], "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": "668 S.E.2d 393", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "case_ids": [ 12642208 ], "weight": 2, "year": 2008, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "394-95" }, { "page": "395", "parenthetical": "holding that the trial court erroneously assigned points to an out-of-state misdemeanor in calculating the defendant's prior record level despite the State's failure to prove that this offense was \"substantially similar\" to a Class A1 or Class 1 North Carolina misdemeanor" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/se2d/668/0393-01" ] }, { "cite": "634 S.E.2d 592", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "case_ids": [ 12636659 ], "weight": 2, "year": 2006, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "593-94" }, { "page": "593-94", "parenthetical": "holding that the trial court erroneously treated certain out-of-state convictions as \"substantially similar\" to various North Carolina offenses for purposes of calculating the defendant's prior record level in the absence of sufficient proof" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/se2d/634/0592-01" ] }, { "cite": "623 S.E.2d 600", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "case_ids": [ 12634713 ], "weight": 6, "year": 2006, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "604" }, { "page": "603" }, { "page": "603" }, { "page": "603-04" }, { "page": "607" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/se2d/623/0600-01" ] }, { "cite": "643 S.E.2d 39", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "case_ids": [ 12638062 ], "year": 2007, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "44" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/se2d/643/0039-01" ] }, { "cite": "662 S.E.2d 37", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "case_ids": [ 12641252, 12641253, 12641254, 12641255, 12641256 ], "year": 2008, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/se2d/662/0037-01", "/se2d/662/0037-02", "/se2d/662/0037-03", "/se2d/662/0037-04", "/se2d/662/0037-05" ] }, { "cite": "675 S.E.2d 672", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 2009, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "675" }, { "page": "675" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "196 N.C. App. 750", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 4166490 ], "weight": 2, "year": 2009, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "755" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/196/0750-01" ] }, { "cite": "194 N.C. App. 748", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "weight": 2, "year": 2008, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "749-50" }, { "page": "350" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "179 N.C. App. 579", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8237999 ], "weight": 2, "year": 2006, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "581-82" }, { "page": "581-82" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/179/0579-01" ] }, { "cite": "379 S.E.2d 30", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1989, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "37" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "324 N.C. 373", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 2483734 ], "year": 1989, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "384" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/324/0373-01" ] }, { "cite": "540 S.E.2d 376", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 2000, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "383" }, { "page": "383", "parenthetical": "emphasis added" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "140 N.C. App. 679", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 12133610 ], "weight": 2, "year": 2000, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "690" }, { "page": "690-91" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/140/0679-01" ] }, { "cite": "250 S.E.2d 682", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1979, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "683" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "39 N.C. App. 470", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8553020 ], "year": 1979, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "472" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/39/0470-01" ] }, { "cite": "175 N.C. App. 250", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8351769 ], "weight": 2, "year": 2006, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "259-60" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/175/0250-01" ] }, { "cite": "565 S.E.2d 738", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 2002, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "742" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "151 N.C. App. 455", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "year": 2002, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "505" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "595 S.E.2d 804", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 2004, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "809" }, { "page": "809", "parenthetical": "quoting State v. Eubanks, 151 N.C. App. 455, 505, 565 S.E.2d 738, 742 (2002)" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "164 N.C. App. 298", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8896980 ], "weight": 2, "year": 2004, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "304" }, { "page": "304", "parenthetical": "quoting State v. Eubanks, 151 N.C. App. 455, 505, 565 S.E.2d 738, 742 (2002)" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/164/0298-01" ] }, { "cite": "182 N.C. App. 683", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8175550 ], "year": 2007, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "691" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/182/0683-01" ] }, { "cite": "190 N.C. 822", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8615584 ], "year": 2008, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/190/0822-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 621, "char_count": 18975, "ocr_confidence": 0.743, "pagerank": { "raw": 4.215478344861316e-07, "percentile": 0.9137777916782021 }, "sha256": "ac72dda48c8bcae5855403d7f17366810c9771695c4ad360dfc3fa9e2b5ee4ee", "simhash": "1:a32a96ea7c6e0df2", "word_count": 3008 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:51:23.100841+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Judges McGEE and JACKSON concur." ], "parties": [ "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. MICHAEL ANTHONY BOHLER" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "ERVIN, Judge.\nOn 11 April 2007, Defendant Michael Anthony Bohler (Defendant) was convicted of one count of felonious breaking and entering, three ' counts of misdemeanor breaking or entering, one count of felonious larceny, three counts of misdemeanor larceny, and four counts of felonious possession of stolen goods. On the same date, Defendant admitted to having attained the status of an habitual felon. On 11 April 2007, Judge V. Bradford Long imposed a judgment upon Defendant in which he consolidated all of Defendant\u2019s convictions for judgment, determined that Defendant had 12 prior record points and should be assigned a prior record level of IV, and sentenced Defendant to a minimum of 120 months and a maximum of 153 months imprisonment in the custody of the North Carolina Department of Correction. Defendant noted an appeal from this judgment.\nOn 3 June 2008, this Court filed an unpublished opinion holding that Defendant had been erroneously convicted and sentenced for both larceny and possession of the same property and that this error was not rendered harmless by the fact that all of Defendant\u2019s convictions were consolidated for judgment. State v. Bohler, 190 N.C. 822, 662 S.E.2d 37 (2008). As a result, we vacated Defendant\u2019s convictions for possession of stolen property and remanded this case to the Superior Court of Moore County for resentencing.\nOn 17 July 2008, the trial court conducted a resentencing hearing. At the conclusion of the resentencing hearing, the trial court entered judgment against Defendant based on his convictions for felonious breaking or entering, three counts of misdemeanor breaking or entering, felonious larceny, and three counts of misdemeanor larceny. At that time, the trial court consolidated the offenses for which Defendant had been convicted for judgment, determined that Defendant had 12 prior record level points and a prior record level of IV, and sentenced Defendant to a minimum term of 120 months imprisonment and a maximum of 153 months imprisonment in the custody of the North Carolina Department of Correction. In determining that Defendant had accumulated 12 prior record points, the trial court assigned Defendant four points based on a single prior conviction for a Class G felony (a conviction for the sale and delivery of cocaine in Moore County File No. 00 CrS 4686); four points based on two prior convictions for Class H felonies (a South Carolina housebreaking and larceny conviction in Greenwood County File No. B122976 and a South Carolina larceny conviction in Greenwood County File No. B563847), and four points based on four prior convictions for misdemeanor offenses (a South Carolina conviction for petit larceny in Greenwood County File No. D1199196, a South Carolina conviction for criminal domestic violence in Greenwood County File No. D915091, a conviction for misdemeanor larceny in Moore County File No. 99 Cr 395, and a conviction for misdemeanor possession of stolen goods in Moore County File No. 95 Cr 6044). Following the imposition of judgment, Defendant noted an appeal to this Court.\nDiscussion\nDefendant contends that the trial court erred by calculating his prior record level using out-of-state convictions that had not been properly shown to be \u201csubstantially similar\u201d to various North Carolina offenses. More specifically, Defendant argues that the trial court inappropriately treated his two South Carolina convictions for housebreaking and larceny and for larceny as Class H felonies and inappropriately treated his two South Carolina convictions for petit larceny and criminal domestic violence as Class A1 or Class 1 misdemeanors in determining his prior record level. As a result, Defendant argues he should have been sentenced as a level III rather than a level IV offender and that this case should be remanded to the trial court for resentencing. After careful consideration of Defendant\u2019s arguments on appeal, we find no prejudicial error in the determination of the sentence imposed upon Defendant.\nThe determination of an offender\u2019s prior record level is a conclusion of law that is subject to de novo review on appeal. State v. Fraley, 182 N.C. App. 683, 691, 643 S.E.2d 39, 44 (2007). It is not necessary that an objection be lodged at the sentencing hearing in order for a claim that the record evidence does not support the trial court\u2019s determination of a defendant\u2019s prior record level to be preserved for appellate review. State v. Morgan, 164 N.C. App. 298, 304, 595 S.E.2d 804, 809 (2004); see N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7\u00a7 15A-1446(d)(5), (d)(18). As a result, the issue before the Court is simply whether the competent evidence in the record adequately supports the trial court\u2019s decision that Defendant had accumulated twelve prior record points and should be sentenced as a prior record level IV offender.\nAccording to N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 15A-1340.14(a), \u201c[t]he prior record level of a felony offender is determined by calculating the sum of the points assigned to each of the offender\u2019s prior convictions that the court. . . finds to have been proved in accordance with this section.\u201d The number of prior record points for each class of felony and misdemeanor offense is specified in N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 15A-1340.14(b). \u201cThe State bears the burden of proving, by a preponderance of the evidence, that a prior conviction exists and that the offender before the court is the same person as the offender named in the prior conviction.\u201d N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 15A-1340.14(f). A prior conviction may be proved by \u201cstipulation of the parties;\u201d \u201c[a]n original or copy of the court record of the prior conviction;\u201d \u201c[a] copy of records maintained by the Division of Criminal Information, the Division of Motor Vehicles, or of the Administrative Office of the Courts;\u201d or \u201c[a]ny other method found by the court to be reliable.\u201d N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 15A-1340.14(f). However, \u201ca worksheet prepared and submitted by the State, purporting to list a defendant\u2019s prior convictions is, without more, insufficient to satisfy the State\u2019s burden in establishing proof of prior convictions.\u201d Morgan, 164 N.C. App. 298, 304, 595 S.E.2d 804, 809 (2004) (quoting State v. Eubanks, 151 N.C. App. 455, 505, 565 S.E.2d 738, 742 (2002)).\nThe proper manner in which to consider out-of-state convictions in calculating a defendant\u2019s prior record level is specified in N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 15A-1340.14(e), which provides, in pertinent part, that:\na conviction occurring in a jurisdiction other than North Carolina is classified as a Class I felony if the jurisdiction in which the offense occurred classifies the offense as a felony, or is classified as a Class 3 misdemeanor if the jurisdiction in which the offense occurred classifies the offense as a misdemeanor. .... If the State proves by the preponderance of the evidence that an offense classified as either a misdemeanor or felony in the other jurisdiction is substantially similar to an offense in North Carolina that is classified as a Class I felony or higher, the conviction is treated as that class of felony for assigning prior record level points. If the State proves by the preponderance of the evidence that an offense classified as a misdemeanor in the other jurisdiction is substantially similar to an offense classified as a Class A1 or Class 1 misdemeanor in North Carolina, the conviction is treated as a Class A1 or Class 1 misdemeanor for assigning prior record points.\nThe rules for proving the proper number of prior record level points that should be assigned to specific out-of-state convictions differ from those applicable to in-state convictions in one important respect.\nHowever, our Court recently held in State v. Hanton, 175 N.C. App. 250, 623 S.E.2d 600 (2006), that \u201cthe question of whether a conviction under an out-of-state statute is substantially similar to an offense under North Carolina statutes is a question of law to be resolved by the trial court.\u201d Id. at 255, 623 S.E.2d at 604. Our Court further stated that \u201c[stipulations as to questions of law are generally held invalid and ineffective, and not binding upon the courts, either trial or appellate.\u201d Id. at 253, 623 S.E.2d at 603 (quoting State v. Prevette, 39 N.C. App. 470, 472, 250 S.E.2d 682, 683 (1979). Although this Court did not explicitly state that a defendant could not stipulate to the substantial similarity of out-of-state convictions, the Court did conclude that this Court\u2019s prior statement in State v. Hanton, 140 N.C. App. 679, 690, 540 S.E.2d 376, 383 (2000), that a defendant might stipulate to this question, was \u201cnon-binding dicta.\u201d Hanton, [175] N.C. App. at [254], 623 S.E.2d at 603. We are bound by prior decisions of a panel of this Court. In the Matter of Appeal from Civil Penalty, 324 N.C. 373, 384, 379 S.E.2d 30, 37 (1989). Thus, we conclude that the stipulation in the worksheet regarding Defendant\u2019s out-of-state convictions was ineffective. See Hanton, [175] N.C. App. at [253-255], 623 S.E.2d at 603-04.\nState v. Palmateer, 179 N.C. App. 579, 581-82, 634 S.E.2d 592, 593-94 (2006); see also State v. Lee, 194 N.C. App. 748, 749-50, 668 S.E.2d 393, 394-95 (2008).\nAt the time of resentencing, Defendant stipulated to the prior record worksheet. In addition, the record reflects that the colloquy occurred between the trial court and Defendant\u2019s trial counsel at the resentencing hearing:\nTHE COURT: Judge Long could have given him a minimum of 133 months and a maximum of 169 months. Correct?\nMR. MORRIS: Correct.\nTHE COURT: How old is your client?\nMR. MORRIS: Forty-two.\nTHE COURT: Does he stipulate that his prior record points are 12 and his prior record level is IV pursuant to habitual felon Prior Record Level Worksheet?\nMR. MORRIS: Yes, Your Honor. We\u2019ve previously stipulated to those.\nAs a result, the record establishes that Defendant stipulated to both the fact of the South Carolina convictions and their substantial similarity to offenses bearing specific North Carolina classifications at the resentencing hearing.\nIn challenging the trial court\u2019s decision to classify him as a level IV offender, Defendant argues that, \u201c[b]ecause the State offered no evidence to show that the South Carolina convictions were misdemeanors or felonies, or that they were substantially similar to North Carolina offenses of either type, the South Carolina offenses should have been disregarded in calculating [Defendant\u2019s] prior record level.\u201d-Had the trial court \u201c[d]isregard[ed] the South Carolina convictions,\u201d Defendant contends that he \u201cwould have received four points for the Class G convictions\u201d and \u201cthree points for the North Carolina misdemeanors,\u201d resulting in a prior record level of III. Given that set of circumstances, Defendant contends that he should have been \u201cexposed to a minimum guideline range of 93-116 months\u201d instead of the 120 month minimum sentence that was actually imposed upon him. After careful consideration of Defendant\u2019s arguments, we conclude that the trial court did not commit prejudicial error in concluding that he should be sentenced as a level IV offender.\nThe fundamental flaw in Defendant\u2019s argument is his assumption that stipulations between the State and a criminal defendant as to the fact of an out-of-state conviction for either a felony or a misdemeanor and stipulations as to the \u201csubstantial similarity\u201d between an out-of-state offense and a North Carolina crime are equally ineffective. Such an argument, however, lacks support in our sentencing jurisprudence. In each of the decisions upon which Defendant relies, the trial judge assigned additional points over and above the default values for out-of-state convictions based on stipulations that those out-of-state convictions were \u201csubstantially similar\u201d to various North Carolina offenses. Lee, 194 N.C. App. at 350, 668 S.E.2d at 395 (holding that the trial court erroneously assigned points to an out-of-state misdemeanor in calculating the defendant\u2019s prior record level despite the State\u2019s failure to prove that this offense was \u201csubstantially similar\u201d to a Class A1 or Class 1 North Carolina misdemeanor); Palmateer, 179 N.C. App. at 581-82, 634 S.E.2d at 593-94 (holding that the trial court erroneously treated certain out-of-state convictions as \u201csubstantially similar\u201d to various North Carolina offenses for purposes of calculating the defendant\u2019s prior record level in the absence of sufficient proof); Hanton, 175 N.C. App. at 259-60, 623 S.E.2d at 607 (holding that the trial court erred by treating certain out-of-state convictions as a Class A1 misdemeanor for the purpose of calculating the defendant\u2019s prior record level despite the absence of sufficient proof that this offense was \u201csubstantially similar\u201d to a North Carolina Class A1 misdemeanor). Thus, although the decisions upon which Defendant relies clearly establish that the trial court erred by treating Defendant\u2019s South Carolina convictions for housebreaking and for larceny as \u201csubstantially similar\u201d to North Carolina Class H felonies and by treating Defendant\u2019s South Carolina convictions for petit larceny and criminal domestic violence as \u201csubstantially similar\u201d to North Carolina Class A1 or Class 1 misdemeanors, that conclusion does not mean that the trial court lacked the authority to consider these convictions for purposes of sentencing at all.\nIn State v. Hinton, 196 N.C. App. 750, 675 S.E.2d 672, 675 (2009), this Court expressly differentiated between the validity of a stipulation \u201cto the existence of any of the convictions listed on the prior record level worksheet\u201d and \u201cthe assignment of points to his prior convictions in New York.\u201d In light of this conclusion, we specifically stated that:\nAccording to the statute, the default classification for out-of-state felony convictions is \u201cClass I.\u201d Where the State seeks to assign an out-of-state conviction a more serious classification than the default Class I status, it is required to prove \u201cby the preponderance of the evidence\u201d that the conviction at issue is \u201csubstantially similar\u201d to a corresponding North Carolina felony. [N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 15A-1340.14(e).] However, where the State classifies an out-of-state conviction as a Class I felony, no such demonstration is required. \u201cUnless the State proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the out-of-state felony convictions are substantially similar to North Carolina offenses that are classified as Class I felonies or higher, the trial court must classify the out-of-state convictions as Class I felonies for sentencing purposes. Hanton, 140 N.C. App. at 690-91, 540 S.E.2d at 383 (emphasis added).\nHinton, 196 N.C. App. at 755, 675 S.E.2d at 675. Thus, while the trial court may not accept a stipulation to the effect that a particular out-of-state conviction is \u201csubstantially similar\u201d to a particular North Carolina felony or misdemeanor, it may accept a stipulation that the defendant in question has been convicted of a particular out-of-state offense and that this offense is either a felony or a misdemeanor under the law of that jurisdiction. As a result, instead of accepting the parties\u2019 stipulation as to the number of points to be assigned to Defendant\u2019s South Carolina convictions, the trial court should have simply applied the default rules set out in N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 15A-1340.14(e) in determining Defendant\u2019s prior record level to the Defendant\u2019s record as stipulated to by the parties. In undertaking that analysis, the trial court should have treated Defendant\u2019s South Carolina felonious housebreaking and felonious larceny convictions as Class I rather than Class H offenses and should have assigned no points to Defendant\u2019s South Carolina petit larceny and criminal domestic violence convictions. N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 15A-1340.14(e). However, since both Class H and Class I felonies are assigned two prior record points each by N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 15A-1340.14(b)(4), a correct application of the rules set out in N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 15A-1340.14 establishes that, had the correct analysis been undertaken, the trial court should have determined that Defendant had ten prior record points rather than twelve (four points for the Moore County possession of cocaine with the intent to sell and deliver - conviction, two points each for the South Carolina felonious housebreaking and felonious larceny convictions, and two points for the Moore County misdemeanor larceny and misdemeanor possession of stolen property). Since a Defendant with ten prior record level points is still a level IV offender, it is clear that the trial court\u2019s error did not adversely affect the sentencing process. Thus, while the trial court did err by classifying Defendant\u2019s South Carolina felonious housebreaking and felonious larceny convictions as Class H rather than Class I felonies and by including Defendant\u2019s South Carolina convictions for petit larceny and criminal domestic violence in calculating Defendant\u2019s prior record level, that error did not adversely affect the prior record level determination, rendering it harmless and precluding the Court from granting Defendant any relief on appeal.\nAFFIRMED.\nJudges McGEE and JACKSON concur.\n. The Prior Record Level Worksheet from the 2008 resentencing is not contained in the Record on Appeal. As a result, the analysis set forth in this opinion is based on the worksheet presented at the original 11 April 2007 sentencing proceeding in light of the affirmative representation of Defendant\u2019s trial counsel that the 19 July 2008 document was \u201cessentially the exact same worksheet as on the last judgment,\u201d the absence of any representation to the contrary from the State at the resentencing hearing, and the consistency between the information shown on that worksheet and the findings set out in the trial court\u2019s judgment.\n. Our review of the sentencing worksheet suggests that Defendant received points for two North Carolina misdemeanor convictions rather than three.\n. In light of our determination that the trial court\u2019s error in calculating Defendant\u2019s prior record level was harmless, we need not undertake an independent analysis of whether the South Carolina offenses for which Defendant was convicted were, in fact, \u201csubstantially similar\u201d to North Carolina Class H felonies or Class A1 or Class 1 misdemeanors.", "type": "majority", "author": "ERVIN, Judge." } ], "attorneys": [ "Attorney General Roy Cooper, by Assistant Attorney General Chris Z. Sinha, for the State.", "Leslie C. Rawls, for defendant." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. MICHAEL ANTHONY BOHLER\nNo. COA08-1515\n(Filed 4 August 2009)\nSentencing\u2014 prior record level \u2014 out-of-state convictions\u2014 statutory default rules\nThere was no prejudicial error in a resentencing proceeding where the trial court should have simply accepted the default rules set out in N.C.G.S. \u00a7 15A-1340.14(e) in evaluating out-of-state convictions, but the error did not adversely effect the prior record level determination.\nAppeal by defendant from judgment entered 17 July 2008 by Judge James M. Webb in Moore County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 20 May 2009.\nAttorney General Roy Cooper, by Assistant Attorney General Chris Z. Sinha, for the State.\nLeslie C. Rawls, for defendant." }, "file_name": "0631-01", "first_page_order": 657, "last_page_order": 664 }