{ "id": 6788299, "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. DANNY RAYMOND PAUL", "name_abbreviation": "State v. Paul", "decision_date": "2013-12-17", "docket_number": "No. COA13-717", "first_page": "448", "last_page": "451", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "231 N.C. App. 448" } ], "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": "630 S.E.2d 719", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "case_ids": [ 12635997 ], "year": 2006, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "726", "parenthetical": "\"The trial court is required to calculate defendant's prior record level upon resentencing her.\"" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/se2d/630/0719-01" ] }, { "cite": "641 S.E.2d 357", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "case_ids": [ 12637844 ], "weight": 2, "year": 2007, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "361" }, { "page": "361", "parenthetical": "citation and internal quotation marks omitted" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/se2d/641/0357-01" ] }, { "cite": "546 S.E.2d 391", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 2000, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "353 N.C. 277", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 135681, 135977, 135722, 135667, 135868 ], "year": 2000, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/353/0277-04", "/nc/353/0277-01", "/nc/353/0277-05", "/nc/353/0277-03", "/nc/353/0277-02" ] }, { "cite": "533 S.E.2d 518", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "pin_cites": [ { "page": "524" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "139 N.C. App. 209", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 9496411 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "220" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/139/0209-01" ] }, { "cite": "480 S.E.2d 708", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1997, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "713", "parenthetical": "holding that when \"evidence presented at the resentencing hearing is not identical to that which was previously before this Court... the doctrine of the law of the case does not bind this Court on the current appeal.\"" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "125 N.C. App. 216", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 11866576 ], "year": 1997, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "224", "parenthetical": "holding that when \"evidence presented at the resentencing hearing is not identical to that which was previously before this Court... the doctrine of the law of the case does not bind this Court on the current appeal.\"" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/125/0216-01" ] }, { "cite": "178 N.C. App. 122", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8376379 ], "year": 2006, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "133", "parenthetical": "\"The trial court is required to calculate defendant's prior record level upon resentencing her.\"" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/178/0122-01" ] }, { "cite": "724 S.E.2d 492", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 2012, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "503" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "365 N.C. 488", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 4153853 ], "year": 2012, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "505" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/365/0488-01" ] }, { "cite": "182 N.C. App. 34", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8168085 ], "weight": 2, "year": 2007, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "39" }, { "page": "40" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/182/0034-01" ] }, { "cite": "703 S.E.2d 168", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 2010, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "174", "parenthetical": "citation and internal quotation marks omitted" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "208 N.C. App. 321", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 4180900 ], "year": 2010, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "329", "parenthetical": "citation and internal quotation marks omitted" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/208/0321-01" ] }, { "cite": "728 S.E.2d 400", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 2012, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "405", "parenthetical": "\"For all intents and purposes the resentenc-ing hearing is de novo as to the appropriate sentence.\"" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "349 S.E.2d 576", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 1986, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "318 N.C. 502", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 4737384 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1986, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/318/0502-01" ] }, { "cite": "338 S.E.2d 557", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 1986, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "560" }, { "page": "560" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "78 N.C. App. 753", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8524066 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1986, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "756" }, { "page": "756" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/78/0753-01" ] }, { "cite": "595 S.E.2d 804", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 2004, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "809" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "164 N.C. App. 298", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8896980 ], "year": 2004, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "304" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/164/0298-01" ] }, { "cite": "681 S.E.2d 801", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 2009, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "804", "parenthetical": "citation omitted" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "198 N.C. App. 631", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 4168838 ], "year": 2009, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "633", "parenthetical": "citation omitted" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/198/0631-01" ] }, { "cite": "736 S.E.2d 649", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 2013, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "unpublished" } ], "opinion_index": 0 } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 431, "char_count": 7035, "ocr_confidence": 0.732, "pagerank": { "raw": 7.591356421208395e-08, "percentile": 0.44976348041912867 }, "sha256": "fd0a6ecd3c77c25e3a2d1ec184eac521ca7bf2b88e93aafc4f0faf534cadec6d", "simhash": "1:8b697cc4fb3f25ee", "word_count": 1173 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:32:40.304740+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Judges McCULLOUGH and DAVIS concur." ], "parties": [ "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. DANNY RAYMOND PAUL" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Elmore, Judge.\nDefendant appeals from a judgment entered on resentencing pursuant to this Court\u2019s decision in State v. Paul, _ N.C. App. _, 736 S.E.2d 649 (2013) (unpublished) (Paul I). Defendant raises as error the trial court\u2019s determination that he was a prior record level IV offender (PRL IV). After careful consideration, we conclude that the trial court did not err, and we affirm the judgment.\nI. Facts\nOn 5 November 2007, defendant pled guilty to sale of a schedule II controlled substance as a habitual felon. At defendant\u2019s sentencing hearing in 2007, the trial court found that defendant had one prior Class H felony conviction worth two points and seven prior Class 1 misdemeanor convictions worth seven points, for a total of nine points and a corresponding PRL IV. See N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 15A-1340.14(c) (2007). The trial court imposed an active prison sentence of 80 to 105 months. Upon review of Paul I, we ruled that the trial court miscalculated defendant\u2019s PRL by assigning prior record points for two misdemeanor convictions obtained on the same day of court, 8 February 2000, in violation of N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 15A-1340.14(d) (2011). Because subtraction of the erroneous point reduced defendant\u2019s PRL from IV (nine points) to III (eight points), we remanded for resentencing.\nOn remand, the State adduced evidence of an additional Class G felony conviction for trafficking in cocaine obtained on 8 September 1988, resulting in four prior record points. Adding these four points to the two points for defendant\u2019s Class H felony conviction and the six points for his six Class 1 misdemeanor convictions obtained during different sessions of court, the trial court concluded that defendant had twelve points and was a PRL IV. See N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 15A-1340.14(c) (2011). Defendant was resentenced to 80 to 105 months imprisonment.\nII. Analysis\nOn appeal, defendant argues that the trial court was bound by our decision in Paul I by the law of the case doctrine to resentence him as a PRL III. We disagree.\n\u201cThe determination of an offender\u2019s prior record level is a conclusion of law that is subject to de novo review on appeal.\u201d State v. Bohler, 198 N.C. App. 631, 633, 681 S.E.2d 801, 804 (2009) (citation omitted). A defendant properly preserves the issue of a sentencing error on appeal despite his failure to object during the sentencing hearing. State v. Morgan, 164 N.C. App. 298, 304, 595 S.E.2d 804, 809 (2004). Should this Court find a sentencing error and remand a case to the trial court for resentencing, that hearing shall generally be conducted de novo. State v. Daye, 78 N.C. App. 753, 756, 338 S.E.2d 557, 560, aff'd, 318 N.C. 502, 349 S.E.2d 576 (1986); see also State v. Morston,_N.C. App._,_, 728 S.E.2d 400, 405 (2012) (\u201cFor all intents and purposes the resentenc-ing hearing is de novo as to the appropriate sentence.\u201d). Pursuant to a de novo review on resentencing, the trial court \u201cmust take its own look at the evidencei.]\u201d Daye, 78 N.C. App. at 756, 338 S.E.2d at 560, aff\u2019d, 318 N.C. 502, 349 S.E.2d 576.\nHowever, under the law of the case doctrine, \u201can appellate court ruling on a question governs the resolution of that question both in subsequent proceedings in the trial court and on a subsequent appeal, provided the same facts and the same questions, which were determined in the previous appeal, are involved in the second appeal.\u201d Bissette v. Auto-Owners Ins. Co., 208 N.C. App. 321, 329, 703 S.E.2d 168, 174 (2010) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). This doctrine applies to both criminal and civil cases alike. State v. Dorton, 182 N.C. App. 34, 39, 641 S.E.2d 357, 361 (2007). The law of the case principle \u201cdoes not apply when the evidence presented at a subsequent proceeding is different from that presented on a former appeal.\u201d State v. Lewis, 365 N.C. 488, 505, 724 S.E.2d 492, 503 (2012). Moreover, \u201cthe law of the case doctrine is specifically limited... to points actually presented and necessary for the determination of the case.\u201d Dorton, 182 N.C. App. at 40, 641 S.E.2d at 361 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted) (emphasis in original).\nHere, the resentencing court did not contravene our ruling in Paul I that only one of defendant\u2019s misdemeanor convictions on 8 February 2000 could be applied to his PRL calculation. Rather, upon new evidence, the resentencing court found that defendant had an additional prior felony conviction, which more than offset the lost point from the improperly counted misdemeanor. Cf. State v. King, 178 N.C. App. 122, 133, 630 S.E.2d 719, 726 (2006) (\u201cThe trial court is required to calculate defendant\u2019s prior record level upon resentencing her.\u201d). The additional conviction admitted by the State constituted new evidence presented to the resentencing court that was not available for consideration by this Court during Paul I. Thus, the resentencing court did not err in determining that defendant was a PRL IV because the new facts rendered the law of the case doctrine inapplicable. See Lewis, supra (ruling that the \u201cretrial court erred in applying the doctrine of the law of the case\u201d where \u201cdefense counsel and the State introduced evidence that had not been presented at defendant\u2019s first trial[;]\u201d Cf. State v. Mason, 125 N.C. App. 216, 224, 480 S.E.2d 708, 713 (1997) (holding that when \u201cevidence presented at the resentencing hearing is not identical to that which was previously before this Court... the doctrine of the law of the case does not bind this Court on the current appeal.\u201d).\nIII. Conclusion\nIn sum, the trial court did not err in finding that defendant was a prior record level IV because the law of the case doctrine did not preclude such a determination. We therefore affirm the trial court\u2019s judgment.\nAffirmed.\nJudges McCULLOUGH and DAVIS concur.\n. While we did note in Paul I that \u201c[w]hen the superfluous point is deducted from defendant\u2019s total, he becomes a prior record level III offender, rather than a Level IV[,]\u201d 2013 N.C. App. LEXIS 75, *3-4, this observation merely served to show that the trial court\u2019s error was prejudicial. See State v. Smith, 139 N.C. App. 209, 220, 533 S.E.2d 518, 524 (Error in calculating prior record points is harmless if it does not affect the defendant\u2019s PRL.), appeal dismissed, 353 N.C. 277, 546 S.E.2d 391 (2000). Absent such prejudice, there would have been no cause to remand for resentencing.", "type": "majority", "author": "Elmore, Judge." } ], "attorneys": [ "Attorney General Roy Cooper, by Assistant Attorney General Derek L. Hunter, for the State.", "Winifred H. Dillon for defendant-appellant." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. DANNY RAYMOND PAUL\nNo. COA13-717\nFiled 17 December 2013\nSentencing \u2014 resentencing\u2014prior record level \u2014 law of case doctrine\nThe trial court did not err by concluding at resentencing for a habitual felon that defendant was a prior record level IV offender. The law of the case doctrine did not preclude such a determination.\nAppeal by defendant from judgment entered 25 March 2013 by Judge Phyllis Gorham in Pender County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 20 November 2013.\nAttorney General Roy Cooper, by Assistant Attorney General Derek L. Hunter, for the State.\nWinifred H. Dillon for defendant-appellant." }, "file_name": "0448-01", "first_page_order": 458, "last_page_order": 461 }