{
  "id": 4151113,
  "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. RANDY LEE SELLARS",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Sellars",
  "decision_date": "2009-03-20",
  "docket_number": "No. 547A05-2",
  "first_page": "112",
  "last_page": "113",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "363 N.C. 112"
    }
  ],
  "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": "638 S.E.2d 452",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "case_ids": [
        12637356
      ],
      "year": 2006,
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/se2d/638/0452-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "664 S.E.2d 45",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "case_ids": [
        12641614
      ],
      "year": 2008,
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/se2d/664/0045-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "167 L. Ed. 2d 1114",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "L. Ed. 2d",
      "year": 2007,
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "550 U.S. 948",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "U.S.",
      "year": 2007,
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "361 N.C. 41",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        3736985
      ],
      "year": 2006,
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/361/0041-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "638 S.E.2d 452",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "case_ids": [
        12637356
      ],
      "year": 2006,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/se2d/638/0452-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "474 S.E.2d 336",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1996,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "345",
          "parenthetical": "citing Carver, 319 N.C. at 667-68, 356 S.E.2d at 351"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "344 N.C. 381",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        867667
      ],
      "year": 1996,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "393",
          "parenthetical": "citing Carver, 319 N.C. at 667-68, 356 S.E.2d at 351"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/344/0381-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "356 S.E.2d 349",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1987,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "351"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "319 N.C. 665",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        4738387
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1987,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "667-68"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/319/0665-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "398 S.E.2d 314",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1990,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "317",
          "parenthetical": "citing State v. Carver, 319 N.C. 665, 356 S.E.2d 349 (1987)"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "327 N.C. 599",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        2497579
      ],
      "year": 1990,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "605",
          "parenthetical": "citing State v. Carver, 319 N.C. 665, 356 S.E.2d 349 (1987)"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/327/0599-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "542 U.S. 296",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "U.S.",
      "case_ids": [
        5868041
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 2004,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/us/542/0296-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "361 N.C. 41",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        3736985
      ],
      "year": 2006,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/361/0041-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 284,
    "char_count": 4306,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.748,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.13492369632360807
    },
    "sha256": "7cf6c5c9d1070e81042927e2fdc06e8a06d5119463ac9f354e47332e1e82dd51",
    "simhash": "1:202b9c7676ac09f0",
    "word_count": 708
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:19:39.869638+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. RANDY LEE SELLARS"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "PER CURIAM.\nWe affirm the decision of the Court of Appeals that found no error in defendant\u2019s trial and sentence. However, we reject the implication in that decision that a jury\u2019s determination that a defendant is not insane resolves the presence or absence of the statutory aggravating factor: \u201cThe defendant knowingly created a great risk of death to more than one person by means of a weapon or device which would normally be hazardous to the lives of more than one person.\u201d N.C.G.S. \u00a7 15A-1340.16 (d)(8) (2007). It does not. Nor does a jury\u2019s finding that a defendant is not insane automatically render any Blakley error on this aggravating factor harmless beyond a reasonable doubt pursuant to State v. Blackwell, 361 N.C. 41, passim, 638 S.E.2d 452, passim, (discussing application of Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296, 159 L. Ed. 2d 403 (2004)). While evidence relevant to an insanity defense and the section 15A-1340.16(d)(8) aggravating factor might overlap, the determinations are independent and neither controls the other.\nThis aggravating factor may be imposed when the evidence shows that the defendant\u2019s weapon \u201cin its normal use is hazardous to the lives of more than one person\u201d and that \u201ca great risk of death was knowingly created.\u201d State v. Rose, 327 N.C. 599, 605, 398 S.E.2d 314, 317 (1990) (citing State v. Carver, 319 N.C. 665, 356 S.E.2d 349 (1987)). Here, the evidence that defendant knowingly set out to use a weapon in a manner that created a great risk of death to more than one person was overwhelming. Defendant\u2019s admitted use of a semiautomatic firearm satisfies the first part of this analysis. State v. Bruton, 344 N.C. 381, 393, 474 S.E.2d 336, 345 (1996) (citing Carver, 319 N.C. at 667-68, 356 S.E.2d at 351). As to the second prong, which requires that defendant have acted knowingly, defendant fired multiple shots at three police officers who confronted him in the public parking lot of a convenience store and returned fire. At his 2003 resentencing hearing, defendant acknowledged that he planned to fire the weapon into the air at the convenience store because a police substation was located nearby. Defendant stated that he hoped to draw return fire from officers to \u201ctake [him] out\u201d and end his suffering. Based on the evidence presented, we conclude that the trial court\u2019s finding of this aggravating factor was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.\nMODIFIED AND AFFIRMED.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "PER CURIAM."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Roy Cooper, Attorney General, by Daniel R OBrien, Assistant Attorney General, for the State.",
      "Jarvis John Edgerton, IV for defendant-appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. RANDY LEE SELLARS\nNo. 547A05-2\n(Filed 20 March 2009)\n1. Sentencing\u2014 aggravating factors \u2014 insanity\u2014independent determinations\nA jury\u2019s determination that a defendant is not insane does not resolve the presence or absence of the statutory aggravating factor of use of a weapon hazardous to the lives of more than one person. Nor does it automatically render any Blakely error harmless. While evidence relevant to an insanity defense and this aggravating factor might overlap, the determinations are independent and neither controls the other.\n2. Sentencing\u2014 aggravating factors \u2014 use of weapon hazardous to more than one person \u2014 Blakely error \u2014 harmlessness\nThe evidence that defendant knowingly set out to use a weapon in a manner that created a risk of death to more than one person was overwhelming where defendant used a semiautomatic firearm and fired multiple shots at three police officers, and acknowledged that he planned to fire the weapon in the hope of drawing return fire and ending his suffering. Therefore, the trial court\u2019s finding of this aggravating factor was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.\nAppeal pursuant to N.C.G.S. \u00a7 7A-30(2) from the decision of a divided panel of the Court of Appeals, 191 N.C. App.-, 664 S.E.2d 45 (2008), which, upon defendant\u2019s appeal from judgments entered on 25 September 2003 by Judge James C. Spencer, Jr. in Superior Court, Alamance County, and upon being ordered by this Court to reconsider its decision remanding the case to the trial court for resentencing in light of State v. Blackwell, 361 N.C. 41, 638 S.E.2d 452 (2006), cert, denied, 550 U.S. 948, 167 L. Ed. 2d 1114 (2007), found no error in the judgments. Heard in the Supreme Court 24 February 2009.\nRoy Cooper, Attorney General, by Daniel R OBrien, Assistant Attorney General, for the State.\nJarvis John Edgerton, IV for defendant-appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0112-01",
  "first_page_order": 150,
  "last_page_order": 151
}