{
  "id": 3737421,
  "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. KENNETH JOEL CUPID",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Cupid",
  "decision_date": "2007-06-28",
  "docket_number": "No. 560PA05",
  "first_page": "417",
  "last_page": "418",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "361 N.C. 417"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "N.C.",
    "id": 9292,
    "name": "Supreme Court of North Carolina"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 5,
    "name_long": "North Carolina",
    "name": "N.C."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "618 S.E.2d 874",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "case_ids": [
        12633900,
        12633901,
        12633902,
        12633903,
        12633904,
        12633905,
        12633906,
        12633907,
        12633908,
        12633909,
        12633910,
        12633911,
        12633912,
        12633913
      ],
      "year": 2005,
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/se2d/618/0874-06",
        "/se2d/618/0874-01",
        "/se2d/618/0874-02",
        "/se2d/618/0874-03",
        "/se2d/618/0874-04",
        "/se2d/618/0874-05",
        "/se2d/618/0874-07",
        "/se2d/618/0874-08",
        "/se2d/618/0874-09",
        "/se2d/618/0874-10",
        "/se2d/618/0874-11",
        "/se2d/618/0874-12",
        "/se2d/618/0874-13",
        "/se2d/618/0874-14"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "173 N.C. App. 448",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "year": 2005,
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "643 S.E.2d 915",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "case_ids": [
        12638285
      ],
      "year": 2007,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "918"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/se2d/643/0915-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "361 N.C. 325",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        3739670
      ],
      "year": 2007,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "330"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/361/0325-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "542 U.S. 296",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "U.S.",
      "case_ids": [
        5868041
      ],
      "year": 2004,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/us/542/0296-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 223,
    "char_count": 3279,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.751,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.10967685760830072
    },
    "sha256": "f3368ca7a17837d4dd6f209bde1c115f3e4d1b939a89f771d5e753b0ceb46dfd",
    "simhash": "1:e398e62276eeb9dc",
    "word_count": 515
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:19:48.141297+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. KENNETH JOEL CUPID"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "PER CURIAM.\nAfter a jury trial, defendant was found guilty of robbery with a dangerous weapon, possession of a firearm by a felon, and felony fleeing to elude arrest with a motor vehicle. The trial court assigned defendant eight prior record points for previous convictions and one point because the offenses were committed \u201c(a) while on . . . probation, parole, or post-release supervision.\u201d The one additional point increased defendant\u2019s prior record level from III to IV, and defendant was sentenced accordingly. During defendant\u2019s sentencing hearing, he stated to the trial court that he \u201cwas on . . . probation\u201d at the time of the offenses.\nDefendant argues that his Sixth Amendment right to a trial by jury was violated because his probationary status, which was used to increase his sentence, was improperly found by the trial court instead of a jury. See Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (2004). This Court held in State v. Hurt, 361 N.C. 325, 330, 643 S.E.2d 915, 918 (2007), however, that a trial court\u2019s aggravation of a defendant\u2019s sentence on the basis of an admission does not violate the Sixth Amendment if \u201cthat defendant personally or through counsel admits the necessary facts.\u201d\nHere, defendant voluntarily declared, in open court during his N.C.G.S. \u00a7 15A-1334(b) presentencing statement, that he \u201cwas on . . . probation\u201d at the time of the offenses. This constitutes an admission of the necessary facts relied on by the trial court to increase defendant\u2019s sentence. Therefore, we hold that defendant\u2019s Sixth Amendment right to a trial by a jury was not violated.\nFor the foregoing reasons, the portion of the Court of Appeals opinion allowing defendant\u2019s Motion for Appropriate Relief in part and remanding for resentencing is reversed. However, the portions of the Court of Appeals opinion denying the Motion for Appropriate Relief in part and finding no prejudicial error in defendant\u2019s convictions as specified in that opinion remain undisturbed.\nAFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "PER CURIAM."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Roy Cooper, Attorney General, by Michael D. Youth, Assistant Attorney General, for the State-appellant.",
      "M. Alexander Chams for defendant-appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. KENNETH JOEL CUPID\nNo. 560PA05\n(Filed 28 June 2007)\nConstitutional Law; Sentencing\u2014 right to jury trial \u2014 aggravating factor found by court \u2014 admission by defendant\nDefendant\u2019s Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial was not violated because his probationary status, which was used to increase his sentences, was found by the trial court instead of by the jury where defendant voluntarily declared in open court during his presentencing statement that he \u201cwas on . . . probabtion\u201d at the time of the offenses since this statement constituted an admission of the necessary facts relied on by the trial court to \u2022 increase defendant\u2019s sentences.\nOn discretionary review pursuant to N.C.G.S. \u00a7 7A-31 of a unanimous, unpublished decision of the Court of Appeals, 173 N.C. App. 448, 618 S.E.2d 874 (2005), finding no reversible error in a trial which resulted in judgments entered 20 August 2003 by Judge Ronald E. Spivey in Superior Court, Guilford County, but remanding the case for resentencing after allowing in part defendant\u2019s Motion for Appropriate Relief. Heard in the Supreme Court 8 May 2007.\nRoy Cooper, Attorney General, by Michael D. Youth, Assistant Attorney General, for the State-appellant.\nM. Alexander Chams for defendant-appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0417-01",
  "first_page_order": 475,
  "last_page_order": 476
}