{ "id": 4174949, "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. KYEEM AMIR BEST, Defendant", "name_abbreviation": "State v. Best", "decision_date": "2010-03-02", "docket_number": "No. COA09-439", "first_page": "753", "last_page": "757", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "202 N.C. App. 753" } ], "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": "516 S.E.2d 605", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1998, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "349 N.C. 237", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 571526, 571542, 571528, 571582 ], "year": 1998, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/349/0237-04", "/nc/349/0237-02", "/nc/349/0237-01", "/nc/349/0237-03" ] }, { "cite": "502 S.E.2d 49", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 7, "year": 1998, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "51" }, { "page": "116" }, { "page": "51" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "130 N.C. App. 113", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 11465606 ], "year": 1998, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/130/0113-01" ] }, { "cite": "605 S.E.2d 672", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 2004, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "674", "parenthetical": "citation, quotation marks, and brackets omitted" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "167 N.C. App. 575", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8412328 ], "year": 2004, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "578", "parenthetical": "citation, quotation marks, and brackets omitted" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/167/0575-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 499, "char_count": 10661, "ocr_confidence": 0.756, "pagerank": { "raw": 4.7817273071113374e-08, "percentile": 0.3004557408559341 }, "sha256": "03b5f88ab001bc1c272fd7b414c08030de6ef4c28f4e80d265ca8393a42e5db8", "simhash": "1:df2ad2e37e061df0", "word_count": 1697 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:18:34.741992+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Judges GEER and ERVIN concur." ], "parties": [ "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. KYEEM AMIR BEST, Defendant" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "STROUD, Judge.\nDefendant was convicted of attempted first degree murder and assault with a deadly weapon with intent to kill inflicting serious injury. Defendant appeals, arguing that the trial court erred in sentencing by considering defendant\u2019s prior conviction for assault. For the following reasons, we affirm.\nBecause defendant\u2019s sole assignment of error brought forward in defendant\u2019s brief is directed to the sentencing proceeding, we need not recite the evidence in detail. We have reviewed the transcript carefully and conclude- the State offered sufficient evidence to show that on 3 August 2006, defendant walked up to Ahmesha, the mother of his daughter, pulled out a handgun, cocked the gun, pointed it at and threatened to kill Ahmesha. Defendant then slapped Ahmesha. Subsequently, Ahmesha swore out a warrant against defendant and obtained a restraining order against defendant. On 19 August 2006, Ahmesha and her aunt were walking down Albemarle Road in Charlotte, North Carolina when defendant ran up to Ahmesha, pointed a handgun at her, and shot Ahmesha three times. Due to the gunshot wounds Ahmesha sustained, she is permanently quadriplegic.\nDefendant testified in his own defense. Defendant admitted to slapping Ahmesha on 3 August 2006. Defendant claimed that members of Ahmesha\u2019s family were threatening him and his family, and defendant was told that Ahmesha would not let him see his daughter. On 19 August 2007, defendant walked up to Ahmesha and asked her if he could see his daughter. Ahmesha told him \u201cno\u201d and he shot Ahmesha. Defendant stated that it was not his intent to shoot Ahmesha when he walked up to her. Keyo Carter also testified for the defense. Mr. Carter stated that, on 19 August 2006, he had been driving defendant around in his car; defendant saw Ahmesha walking down the street; defendant asked Mr. Carter to pull over in a parking lot; and defendant asked Mr. Carter to go talk to Ahmesha, which he did. After Mr. Carter returned to the car, they left the parking lot, but defendant asked Mr. Carter to pull into another parking lot and defendant exited the car to talk to Ahmesha. Mr. Carter did not see defendant shoot Ahmesha, but when defendant returned to the car he was distraught, crying, and hysterically telling Mr. Carter that he shot his baby\u2019s mother.\nOn 11 September 2006, defendant was indicted for attempted first degree murder and assault with a deadly weapon with intent to kill inflicting serious injury. Defendant was tried on these charges at the 7 July 2008 Criminal Session of the Superior Court, Mecklenburg County, and a jury found defendant guilty of both charges. At sentencing, the trial court found mitigating factors and defendant stipulated to an aggravating factor. The trial court sentenced defendant as a Record Level III offender in the aggravated range to concurrent sentences of 276 to 341 months imprisonment for the attempted first degree murder and 145 to 183 months imprisonment for the assault with a deadly weapon with intent to kill inflicting serious injury. Defendant gave oral notice of appeal at trial.\nIn his only assignment of error brought forth on appeal, defendant contends that the trial court committed reversible error by not requiring the State to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that a prior conviction exists and that defendant is the same person as the offender named in the prior conviction. Specifically, defendant argues that the State did not provide sufficient proof of his 4 December 2006 conviction for assault by pointing a gun, which was included in defendant\u2019s prior record level calculation. Therefore, defendant\u2019s prior record points were computed incorrectly, placing him in a higher prior record level.\nWhen reviewing alleged errors in the computation of a defendant\u2019s prior record level \u201c[o]ur standard of review is whether the sentence is supported by evidence introduced at the trial and sentencing hearing.\u201d State v. Jeffery, 167 N.C. App. 575, 578, 605 S.E.2d 672, 674 (2004) (citation, quotation marks, and brackets omitted). At sentencing \u201c[t]he 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) (2005). The State can meet its burden through any of the following methods:\n(1) Stipulation of the parties.\n(2) An original or copy of the court record of the prior conviction.\n(3) A copy of records maintained by the Division of Criminal Information, the Division of Motor Vehicles, or of the Administrative Office of the Courts.\n(4) Any other method found by the court to be reliable.\nThe original or a copy of the court records or a copy of the records maintained by the Division of Criminal Information, the Division of Motor Vehicles, or of the Administrative Office of the Courts, bearing the same name as that by which the offender is charged, is prima facie evidence that the offender named is the same person as the offender before the court, and that the facts set out in the record are true. For purposes of this subsection, \u201ca copy\u201d includes a paper writing containing a reproduction of a record maintained electronically on a computer or other data processing equipment, and a document produced by a facsimile machine. The prosecutor shall make all feasible efforts to obtain and present to the court the offender\u2019s full record. Evidence presented by either party at trial may be utilized to prove prior convictions ....\nN.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 15A-1340.14(f).\nAt sentencing, defendant did not stipulate to his prior record level. The State presented to the trial court defendant\u2019s prior record level worksheet, a Division of Criminal Information (\u201cDCI\u201d) report and a print-out of an email from the prosecutor to defendant\u2019s prior counsel. Inserted into the email is a screen-shot from the Administrative Office of the Courts (\u201cAOC\u201d) computerized criminal record system showing defendant\u2019s prior conviction for assault by pointing a gun in Mecklenburg County. This conviction was not included in the DCI report. Defense counsel did not contest the convictions on the DCI report but argued that defendant\u2019s prior conviction for assault reflected on the printed-out email should not be considered in calculating defendant\u2019s prior record level points.\nIn State v. Rich, 130 N.C. App. 113, 502 S.E.2d 49, disc. review denied, 349 N.C. 237, 516 S.E.2d 605 (1998), this Court addressed a similar issue. In Rich, the trial court, in determining the defendant\u2019s prior conviction level, considered an unverified computerized printout that contained \u201cthe heading \u2018DCI-Record\u2019 (Division of Criminal Information) [,] ... a detailed description of defendant including his fingerprint identifier number and FBI number, and showed that defendant had been convicted of multiple offenses in North Carolina, New Jersey, and New York.\u201d Id. at 115, 502 S.E.2d at 51. The defendant argued that the trial court erred \u201cby accepting the State\u2019s offer of \u2018an unverified computerized printout not under seal\u2019 to prove defendant\u2019s prior criminal convictions.\u201d Id. This Court noted that \u201cthe computerized printout was a detailed record of defendant\u2019s criminal history as maintained by the Division of Criminal Information.\u201d Id. at 116, 502 S.E.2d at 51. In affirming the trial court\u2019s consideration of the printout in calculating defendant\u2019s prior record level, this Court held that\n[a] \u2018copy\u2019, includes \u2018a paper writing containing a reproduction of a record maintained electronically on a computer or other data processing equipment. . . .\u2019 N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 15A-1340.14(f). The computerized record contained sufficient identifying information with respect to defendant to give it the indicia of reliability. Thus, we believe use of the printout to prove defendant\u2019s prior convictions was proper under G.S. \u00a7 15A-1340.14(f)(3) and, in addition, under G.S. \u00a7 15A-1340.14(f)(4).\nId.\nHere, as in Rich, the printed-out email contains a copy of the AOC record of the defendant\u2019s conviction. Id. The email printout contains defendant\u2019s name, date of birth, case number, charged offense, arrest date, location of arrest and the names of defendant\u2019s attorney and the victim. Defendant\u2019s name, address, and date of birth are confirmed by warrants for defendant\u2019s arrest, the indictment, the trial court\u2019s orders included in the record and defendant\u2019s own testimony. Trial testimony regarding defendant\u2019s confrontation with Ahmesha on 3 August 2006 also verifies the victim and charged offense as listed on the printed-out email.\nN.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 15A-1340.14(f) specifically provides that \u201ca copy\u201d can include \u201ca paper writing containing a reproduction of a record maintained electronically on a computer[.]\u201d We hold that the printed-out email, which contains a screenshot of the AOC record of the conviction, is \u201ca copy\u201d of a \u201crecord maintained electronically\u201d by the Administrative Office of the Courts, which is sufficient to prove defendant\u2019s prior conviction under N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 15A-1340.14(f)(3). In addition, the information contained in the printed-out email provides sufficient identifying information with respect to defendant to give it the indicia of reliability to prove defendant\u2019s prior convictions under N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 15A-1340.14(f)(4); indeed, defendant does not argue that the email or screenshot is incorrect or inaccurate in any way. Therefore, the trial court did not err in considering defendant\u2019s prior convictions shown on the printed-out email and did not err in calculating defendant\u2019s prior conviction level.\nNO ERROR.\nJudges GEER and ERVIN concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "STROUD, Judge." } ], "attorneys": [ "Attorney General Roy A. Cooper, III, by Assistant Attorney General Amy C. Kunstling, for the State.", "Haral E. Carlin, for defendant-appellant." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. KYEEM AMIR BEST, Defendant\nNo. COA09-439\n(Filed 2 March 2010)\nSentencing\u2014 prior record level \u2014 printed-out email\nThe trial court did not err in an attempted first-degree murder and assault with a deadly weapon with intent to kill inflicting serious injury case by considering defendant\u2019s prior assault conviction when determining his prior record level. A printed-out email, containing a screenshot of the Administrative Office of the Courts\u2019 (AOC) record of the conviction, was a copy of a record maintained electronically by the AOC, and was sufficient to prove defendant\u2019s prior conviction under N.C.G.S. \u00a7 15A-1340.14(f)(3).\nAppeal by defendant from judgments entered on or about 11 July 2008 by Judge Timothy L. Patti in Superior Court, Mecklenburg County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 30 September 2009.\nAttorney General Roy A. Cooper, III, by Assistant Attorney General Amy C. Kunstling, for the State.\nHaral E. Carlin, for defendant-appellant." }, "file_name": "0753-01", "first_page_order": 781, "last_page_order": 785 }