{
  "id": 4343478,
  "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. KWAME HOLLOWAY",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Holloway",
  "decision_date": "2011-10-18",
  "docket_number": "No. COA11-240",
  "first_page": "412",
  "last_page": "415",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "216 N.C. App. 412"
    }
  ],
  "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": "686 S.E.2d 493",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 2009,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "501",
          "parenthetical": "citation omitted"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "363 N.C. 689",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        4151348
      ],
      "year": 2009,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "700",
          "parenthetical": "citation omitted"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/363/0689-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "334 S.E.2d 107",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1985,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "108",
          "parenthetical": "discussing N.C.G.S. \u00a7 14-7.6"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "76 N.C. App. 638",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8527755
      ],
      "year": 1985,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "640",
          "parenthetical": "discussing N.C.G.S. \u00a7 14-7.6"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/76/0638-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 14-7.6",
      "category": "laws:leg_statute",
      "reporter": "N.C. Gen. Stat.",
      "year": 2009,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 14-7.2",
      "category": "laws:leg_statute",
      "reporter": "N.C. Gen. Stat.",
      "year": 2009,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "parenthetical": "emphasis added"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "233 S.E.2d 585",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1977,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "292 N.C. 431",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8569971
      ],
      "year": 1977,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/292/0431-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 14-7.1",
      "category": "laws:leg_statute",
      "reporter": "N.C. Gen. Stat.",
      "weight": 2,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "533 S.E.2d 518",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 2000,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "520"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "139 N.C. App. 209",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        9496411
      ],
      "year": 2000,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "214"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/139/0209-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 14-33.2",
      "category": "laws:leg_statute",
      "reporter": "N.C. Gen. Stat.",
      "year": 2009,
      "opinion_index": 0
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 320,
    "char_count": 5452,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.746,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.643594115661138e-08,
      "percentile": 0.29138281807163274
    },
    "sha256": "94be1be0d5de5a7c122ae20eec47d7525d44f7b8be46c37fa9ccc304be347397",
    "simhash": "1:2b79cb64e66d36e5",
    "word_count": 868
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:13:27.459138+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Chief Judge MARTIN and Judge CALABRIA concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. KWAME HOLLOWAY"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "BRYANT, Judge.\nBecause defendant was convicted of habitual misdemeanor assault, a class H felony, and attained the status of habitual felon, we affirm the trial court\u2019s judgment sentencing defendant pursuant to the habitual felon sentencing statute.\nOn 15 June 2009, a Wake County Grand Jury indicted defendant Kwame Holloway on two counts of assault on a female and two counts of habitual misdemeanor assault for striking his girlfriend on 4 December 2008 and 23 December 2008. On 28 July 2009, a grand jury indicted defendant on attaining habitual felon status: Defendant\u2019s prior felony convictions included second-degree kidnapping (95 CRS 15412), possession of cocaine (00 CRS 36635), and felonious restraint (02 CRS 102997). Prior to trial, defendant admitted to two prior misdemeanor assault convictions. On 21 July 2010, following a trial in Wake County Superior Court, a jury found defendant Kwame Holloway guilty of two counts of assault on a female. After a sentencing hearing, the trial court sentenced defendant to two consecutive sentences of 108 to 139 months in the custody of the North Carolina Department of Correction. Each sentence was predicated on a consolidated judgment for one count of assault on a female, one count of habitual misdemeanor assault, as well as, attaining habitual felon status. Defendant appeals.\nOn appeal, defendant argues that the trial court erred in sentencing him as an habitual felon. Defendant contends that habitual felon status cannot be attained based on misdemeanor criminal conduct. Specifically, defendant contends that his convictions for habitual misdemeanor assault, a class H felony, cannot be used as a felony on which to predicate sentencing as a habitual felon. We disagree.\nPursuant to North Carolina General Statutes, section 14-33.2, describing conduct punishable as habitual misdemeanor assault, \u201c[a] conviction under this section shall not be used as a prior conviction for any other habitual offense statute.\u201d N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 14-33.2 (2009). This Court has previously held N.C.G.S. \u00a7 14-33.2, \u201cthe habitual misdemeanor statute[,] to be a substantive offense.\u201d State v. Smith, 139 N.C. App. 209, 214, 533 S.E.2d 518, 520 (2000). In comparison, the habitual felon statute, N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 14-7.1, is not a substantive offense. \u201cRather, being an habitual felon is a status justifying an increased punishment for the principal felony.\u201d Id. (citing State v. Allen, 292 N.C. 431, 233 S.E.2d 585 (1977)).\n\u201cWhen any person is charged by indictment with the commission of a felony under the laws of the State of North Carolina and is also charged with being an habitual felon as defined in G.S. 14-7.1, he must, upon conviction, be sentenced and punished as an habitual felon____\u201d N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 14-7.2 (2009) (emphasis added). \u201cWhen an habitual felon . . . commits any felony under the laws of the State of North Carolina, the felon must, upon conviction ... be sentenced as a Class C felon.\u201d N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 14-7.6 (2009).\nHere, defendant was indicted and convicted on two counts of habitual misdemeanor assault, a substantive crime and a class H felony. Defendant was also indicted and convicted on two counts of attaining habitual felon status as defined in N.C.G.S. \u00a7 14-7.1. Therefore, based on our statutes, defendant must be sentenced as a Class C felon. See N.C.G.S. \u00a7\u00a7 14-7.2, 14-7.6.\nWhile defendant\u2019s arguments \u00e1re well taken, we note that the primary purpose of recidivist statutes such as these are \u201cto deter repeat offenders and, at some point in the life of one who repeatedly commits criminal offenses serious enough to be punished as felonies, to segregate that person from the rest of society for an extended period of time.\u201d State v. Aldridge, 76 N.C. App. 638, 640, 334 S.E.2d 107, 108 (1985) (discussing N.C.G.S. \u00a7 14-7.6).\nAffirmed.\nChief Judge MARTIN and Judge CALABRIA concur.\n1. We note that defendant submitted for our consideration a pro se amendment to the brief submitted by his appellate counsel. We do not consider this amendment. \u201cHaving elected for representation by appointed defense counsel, defendant cannot also file motions on his own behalf or attempt to represent himself. Defendant has no right to appear both by himself and by counsel.\u201d State v. Williams, 363 N.C. 689, 700, 686 S.E.2d 493, 501 (2009) (citation omitted).",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "BRYANT, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney General Roy Cooper, by Special Deputy Attorney General Valerie L. Bateman, for the State.",
      "Hartsell & Williams, P.A., by Christy E. Wilhelm and Benjamin G. Goff, for defendant-appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. KWAME HOLLOWAY\nNo. COA11-240\n(Filed 18 October 2011)\n1. Appeal and Error \u2014 representation\u2014amendment to brief by defendant\nA defendant did not have the right to appear both by himself and by counsel, and a pro se amendment to council's brief was not considered.\n2. Sentencing \u2014 habitual felon \u2014 habitual misdemeanor assault\nThe trial court did not err by sentencing defendant as an habitual felon using convictions that included habitual misdemeanor assault. Although the habitual misdemeanor assault statute, N.C.G.S. \u00a7 14-33.2, states that a conviction under that section may not be used as a prior conviction for any other habitual offense statute, the habitual felony statute involves a status rather than a substantive offense.\nAppeal by defendant from judgment entered 21 July 2010 by Judge Henry W. Hight, Jr., in Wake County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 12 September 2011.\nAttorney General Roy Cooper, by Special Deputy Attorney General Valerie L. Bateman, for the State.\nHartsell & Williams, P.A., by Christy E. Wilhelm and Benjamin G. Goff, for defendant-appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0412-01",
  "first_page_order": 422,
  "last_page_order": 425
}