{
  "id": 8527456,
  "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. EDWARD LEON MILLER",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Miller",
  "decision_date": "1983-10-18",
  "docket_number": "No. 8321SC74",
  "first_page": "618",
  "last_page": "619",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "64 N.C. App. 618"
    }
  ],
  "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": "300 S.E. 2d 689",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1983,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "701"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "307 N.C. 584",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8565300
      ],
      "year": 1983,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "602"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/307/0584-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "301 S.E. 2d 71",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "weight": 3,
      "year": 1983,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "180"
        },
        {
          "page": "78"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "308 N.C. 169",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        4710824
      ],
      "year": 1983,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/308/0169-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 194,
    "char_count": 2582,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.803,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.20559113678056135
    },
    "sha256": "2e8cbad5a36e0993f7ac5926c6bd4932d88e6931a89ee5a32037c90a5857aa2f",
    "simhash": "1:8b6a020b6863082e",
    "word_count": 426
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:03:16.623003+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges Webb and Hill concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. EDWARD LEON MILLER"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "HEDRICK, Judge.\nDefendant first assigns as error the trial court\u2019s finding as an aggravating factor that the sentence is necessary to deter others from committing the same crime. In State v. Chatman, 308 N.C. 169, 301 S.E. 2d 71 (1983), the Supreme Court held that this could not be an aggravating factor because it presumably was one of the bases for determining the presumptive sentence and was within the \u201cexclusive realm of the legislature.\u201d The Supreme Court further held the finding to be an improper aggravating factor because it fails to relate to \u201cthe character or conduct of the offender.\u201d Id. at 180, 301 S.E. 2d at 78. Therefore, we are compelled to find that the trial court erred in its findings of factors in aggravation.\n\u201c[I]n every case in which it is found that the judge erred in a finding or findings in aggravation and imposed a sentence beyond the presumptive term, the case must be remanded for a new sentencing hearing.\u201d State v. Ahearn, 307 N.C. 584, 602, 300 S.E. 2d 689, 701 (1983).\nDefendant further contends the trial court erred by failing to find factors in mitigation. Since there must be a new sentencing hearing we need not discuss this assignment of error.\nRemanded for resentencing.\nJudges Webb and Hill concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "HEDRICK, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney General Rufus L. Edmisten, by Assistant Attorney General Archie W. Anders, for the State.",
      "Powell and Yeager, by Harrell Powell, Jr. and David E. Cresenzo, for the defendant, appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. EDWARD LEON MILLER\nNo. 8321SC74\n(Filed 18 October 1983)\nCriminal Law \u00a7 138\u2014 aggravating factor in sentencing \u2014 sentence necessary to deter others\nIn imposing a sentence greater than the presumptive term, the trial court erred in finding as an aggravating factor that the sentence was necessary to deter others from committing the same crime.\nAPPEAL by defendant from Rousseau, Judge. Judgment entered 2 November 1982 in Superior Court, Forsyth County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 29 September 1983.\nDefendant entered a plea of guilty to the sale of cocaine. A sentencing hearing was conducted after which the court found the following aggravating factor: \u201c[t]he sentence is necessary to deter others from committing the same crime.\u201d The court found no mitigating factors even though the defendant offered evidence, to which the State stipulated, that he had no prior criminal record. Upon finding that the factors in aggravation outweighed the factors in mitigation the court imposed a sentence, greater than the presumptive term, of six years. Pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. Sec. 15A-1444(al) defendant appealed.\nAttorney General Rufus L. Edmisten, by Assistant Attorney General Archie W. Anders, for the State.\nPowell and Yeager, by Harrell Powell, Jr. and David E. Cresenzo, for the defendant, appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0618-01",
  "first_page_order": 650,
  "last_page_order": 651
}