{ "id": 4131938, "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. CHARLAYNE ANNETTE CRAWFORD", "name_abbreviation": "State v. Crawford", "decision_date": "2013-02-05", "docket_number": "No. COA12-565", "first_page": "426", "last_page": "430", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "225 N.C. App. 426" } ], "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": "18 U.S.C. \u00a7 1001", "category": "laws:leg_statute", "reporter": "U.S.C.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 14-225", "category": "laws:leg_statute", "reporter": "N.C. Gen. Stat.", "weight": 3, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "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": "604 S.E.2d 850", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 2004, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "876" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "359 N.C. 77", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 3801733 ], "weight": 2, "year": 2004, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "115" }, { "page": "115" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/359/0077-01" ] }, { "cite": "675 S.E.2d 672", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 2009, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "675-76" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "196 N.C. App. 750", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 4166490 ], "year": 2009, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/196/0750-01" ] }, { "cite": "18 U.S.C. \u00a7 1001", "category": "laws:leg_statute", "reporter": "U.S.C.", "opinion_index": 0 } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 421, "char_count": 9252, "ocr_confidence": 0.758, "pagerank": { "raw": 5.207966869300525e-08, "percentile": 0.3278557939092202 }, "sha256": "ab98a6c15e5b5d18471e0229d9dfc3d4acc2a9e5c2af05f553660db5e92d68ce", "simhash": "1:8f698b6a7f0f8df7", "word_count": 1460 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:12:03.865649+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Chief Judge MARTIN and Judge ERVIN concur." ], "parties": [ "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. CHARLAYNE ANNETTE CRAWFORD" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "STEELMAN, Judge.\nWhere defendant failed to demonstrate that her federal felony convictions were substantially similar to North Carolina misdemeanors, the trial court correctly sentenced her as a prior felony record level II. Where defendant cannot show that one of her prior federal felony convictions was substantially similar to a North Carolina misdemeanor, her claim of ineffective assistance of counsel must fail. The State presented a sufficient factual basis to support defendant\u2019s plea of guilty to the charge of felony breaking or entering under N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 15A-1022(c).\nI.Factual and Procedural Background\nCharlayne Annette Crawford (defendant) was indicted for felonious breaking and/or entering, larceny after breaking and/or entering, and obtaining property by false pretenses. On 11 January 2012, defendant pled guilty to felony breaking and/or entering. Defendant was sentenced to 8-10 months imprisonment. That sentence was suspended, and defendant was placed on 60 months of supervised probation.\nDefendant appeals.\nII.Writ of Certiorari\nIn her petition for writ of certiorari, defendant concedes that she failed to serve her pro se notice of appeal upon the State.\nIn our discretion, we grant defendant\u2019s petition for writ of certiorari pursuant to North Carolina Rule of Appellate Procedure 21.\nIII.Calculation of Prior Record Level\nIn her first argument, defendant contends that the trial court erred in computing her felony sentencing level. We disagree.\nUpon her plea of guilty to felony breaking and/or entering, the State and defendant submitted a felony sentencing worksheet (AOC-CR-600). This worksheet contained the following stipulation, signed by counsel for the State and defendant: \u201cThe prosecutor and defense counsel. . . stipulate to the information set out in Sections I and V of this form, and agree with the defendant\u2019s prior record level or prior conviction level as set out in Section II based on the information herein.\u201d Section V of the worksheet showed two prior convictions: (1) impersonating an officer; and (2) false statement to the FBI. These convictions were not in the courts of North Carolina and were shown as Class I felonies. Based upon these convictions, the trial court found two prior Class I felony convictions, for a total of four points, and that defendant was a prior record level II for felony sentencing. Defendant was sentenced as a level II offender, from the presumptive range of sentences.\nOn appeal, defendant does not dispute that both convictions, which were in federal court, were felonies under federal law. She also acknowledges that under the provisions of N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 15A-1340(e), the burden rested upon the defendant to show that the offense committed in another jurisdiction was substantially similar to a misdemeanor in North Carolina. Defendant now contends that impersonation of an officer was a Class 1 misdemeanor in North Carolina and that making a false statement to the FBI was similar to making a false report to law enforcement, a Class 2 misdemeanor in North Carolina.\nN.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 15A-1340.14(e) provides:\nExcept as otherwise provided in this subsection, a 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 .... If the offender proves by the preponderance of the evidence that an offense classified as a felony in the other jurisdiction is substantially similar to an offense that is a misdemeanor in North Carolina, the conviction is treated as that class of misdemeanor for assigning prior record level points.\nN.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 15A-1340.14(e) (2011).\nIn State v. Hinton, 196 N.C. App. 750, 675 S.E.2d 672 (2009), this Court held that where the State relied upon the default classification for out-of-state felonies of Class I, it was not required to prove that the felonies were \u201csubstantially similar to North Carolina offenses[.]\u201d Hinton, 196 N.C. at 755, 675 S.E.2d at 675-76. In such a situation, as in the instant case, it became the burden of defendant to demonstrate that the out-of-state felonies were substantially similar to a North Carolina misdemeanor.\nDefendant made no showing before the trial court that either of her two prior federal felony convictions were substantially similar to North Carolina misdemeanors. The trial court did not err in finding that defendant had 4 prior record points and sentencing her at a prior record level II.\nThis argument is without merit.\nIV. Ineffective Assistance of Counsel\nIn her second argument, defendant contends that counsel was ineffective for failing to demonstrate that her prior federal convictions were substantially similar to North Carolina misdemeanors. We disagree.\n\u201cThe two-part test for ineffective assistance of counsel is the same under both the state and federal constitutions.\u201d State v. Thompson, 359 N.C. 77, 115, 604 S.E.2d 850, 876 (2004). \u201cA defendant must first show that his defense counsel's performance was deficient and, second, that counsel\u2019s deficient performance prejudiced his defense. Thompson, 359 N.C. at 115, 604 S.E.2d at 876 (citing Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687, 80 L.Ed.2d 674, 693 (1984)).\nIn the instant case, defendant can show no prejudice. The North Carolina statute that she cites as being substantially similar to the federal offense of making a false statement to the FBI is N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 14-225. That statute makes it a Class 2 misdemeanor to make a \u201cfalse, misleading or unfounded report\u201d to law enforcement. N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 14-225 (2011). The federal statute makes it a criminal offense where one knowingly and willfully\n(1) falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact;\n(2) makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation; or\n(3) makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry.\n18 U.S.C. 1001.\nThe North Carolina statute deals only with a \u201creport\u201d and contains no requirement of materiality. We hold that N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 14-225 and 18 U.S.C. \u00a7 1001 are not substantially similar.\nSince defendant can show no prejudice, her claim for ineffective assistance of counsel must fail.\nV. Factual Basis of Guilty Plea\nIn her third argument, defendant contends that the State failed to present a sufficient factual basis to support her conviction of felony breaking and/or entering. We disagree.\nImmediately before the calling of this case for trial, the parties announced to the court that they agreed upon a plea arrangement. The terms of the plea arrangement were that defendant would plead guilty to one count of felonious breaking and/or entering and that the State would dismiss the other charges. The trial court personally went over the plea transcript with defendant. After stipulating to her prior convictions and record level, defendant stipulated that there was a factual basis for the guilty plea and that the State could present a summary of the evidence. The State then proceeded to summarize the evidence in this case. BB&T owned a residence located at 128 Lake Drive in Candler as a result of a foreclosure. Defendant broke into the house and was preparing to move into the house when a realtor discovered her on the property.\nWe hold that the State\u2019s summary of the factual basis for the plea was sufficient to meet the requirements of N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 15A-1022(c).\nThis argument is without merit.\nPETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI ALLOWED.\nAFFIRMED.\nChief Judge MARTIN and Judge ERVIN concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "STEELMAN, Judge." } ], "attorneys": [ "Attorney General Roy Cooper by Assistant Attorney General Jonathan Shaw for the State.", "Appellate Defender Staples S. Hughes by Assistant Appellate Defender Kathleen M. Joyce for defendant-appellant." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. CHARLAYNE ANNETTE CRAWFORD\nNo. COA12-565\nFiled 5 February 2013\n1. Sentencing \u2014 prior record points \u2014 federal felony convictions\nThe trial court did not err by finding that defendant had four prior record points and sentencing her at a prior record level II where defendant made no showing before the trial court that either of her two prior federal felony convictions were substantially similar to North Carolina misdemeanors.\n2. Constitutional Law \u2014 effective assistance of counsel \u2014 sentencing \u2014 prior federal felonies\nDefendant suffered no prejudice and no ineffective assistance of counsel where she contended that counsel was ineffective for failing to demonstrate that her prior federal convictions were substantially similar to North Carolina misdemeanors. The two offenses, N.C.G.S. \u00a7 14-225 and 18 U.S.C. \u00a7 1001, were not substantially similar.\n3. Burglary and Unlawful Breaking or Entering \u2014 felony breaking and entering \u2014 guilty plea \u2014 factual basis \u2014 sufficient statement\nThe State presented a sufficient factual basis to support defendant\u2019s conviction of felony breaking and entering where the State\u2019s summary of the factual basis for the plea was sufficient to meet the requirements of N.C.G.S. \u00a7 15A-1022(c).\nAppeal by defendant from judgment entered 11 January 2012 by Judge Richard L. Doughton in Buncombe County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 22 October 2012.\nAttorney General Roy Cooper by Assistant Attorney General Jonathan Shaw for the State.\nAppellate Defender Staples S. Hughes by Assistant Appellate Defender Kathleen M. Joyce for defendant-appellant." }, "file_name": "0426-01", "first_page_order": 436, "last_page_order": 440 }