Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
12 North Carolina opinions name it 2 courts 1986–2021 2 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by North Carolina courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
State v. Foxgreen2 sentences2021“Defendant cannot repudiate in part without repudiating the whole.” Id.; see also State v. Fox, 34 N.C. 2021“Defendant cannot repudiate in part without repudiating the whole.” Id.; see also State v. Fox, 34 N.C. | 2 | 2 |
State v. Allengreen2 sentences2005See also Allen, 359 N.C. at 439 , 615 S.E.2d at 266 (“We emphasize that Blakely , which is grounded in the Sixth Amendment right to jury trial, affects only those portions of the Structured Sentencing Act which require the sentencing judge to consider the existence of aggravating factors not admitted to by a defendant or found by a jury and which permit the judge to impose an aggravated sentence after finding such aggravating factors by a preponderance of the evidence.”). 2005See also Allen, 359 N.C. at 439 , 615 S.E.2d at 266 (“We emphasize that Blakely , which is grounded in the Sixth Amendment right to jury trial, affects only those portions of the Structured Sentencing Act which require the sentencing judge to consider the existence of aggravating factors not admitted to by a defendant or found by a jury and which permit the judge to impose an aggravated sentence after finding such aggravating factors by a preponderance of the evidence.”). | 2 | 2 |
Blakely v. Washingtongreen2 sentences2005The defendant next assigns as error that the trial court sentenced him in the aggravated range without the finding of the existence of aggravating factors by a jury in violation of Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 , 159 L. 2005The defendant next assigns as error that the trial court sentenced him in the aggravated range without the finding of the existence of aggravating factors by a jury in violation of Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 , 159 L. | 1 | 2 |
State v. Everettegreen2 sentences2016See State v. Everette, 361 N.C. 646 , 650, 652 S.E.2d 241 , 244 (2007) ("[I]n most instances, aggravating factors increasing a defendant's sentence must be submitted to a jury and *364 proved beyond a reasonable doubt.") (citing Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 , 124 S.Ct. 2531 , 159 L.Ed.2d 403 (2004) ). 2016See State v. Everette, 361 N.C. 646 , 650, 652 S.E.2d 241 , 244 (2007) ("[I]n most instances, aggravating factors increasing a defendant's sentence must be submitted to a jury and *364 proved beyond a reasonable doubt.") (citing Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 , 124 S.Ct. 2531 , 159 L.Ed.2d 403 (2004) ). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Thompsongreen2 sentences1994State v. Thompson, 314 N.C. 618, 622 , 336 S.E.2d 78, 80 (1985). 1994State v. Thompson, 314 N.C. 618, 622 , 336 S.E.2d 78, 80 (1985). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Riosgreen2 sentences1992See State v. Rios, 322 N.C. 596, 598 , 369 S.E.2d 576, 577-78 (1988) (upholding trial court’s finding of aggravating sentencing factor which was based solely on evidence presented at defendant’s trial); Taylor, 322 N.C. at 287 , 367 S.E.2d at 668 . 1992See State v. Rios, 322 N.C. 596, 598 , 369 S.E.2d 576, 577-78 (1988) (upholding trial court’s finding of aggravating sentencing factor which was based solely on evidence presented at defendant’s trial); Taylor, 322 N.C. at 287 , 367 S.E.2d at 668 . | 1 | 1 |
State v. Lloydgreen1 sentence1992See State v. Lloyd, 89 N.C. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in North Carolina. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Apprendi v. New Jersey
green
2 sentences2016Gen.Stat. § 14-27.4A(c) Statutes which permit a defendant's sentence to be lengthened based on the existence of aggravating factors have a long history of review at the Supreme Court of the United States, beginning with Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 , 120 S.Ct. 2348 , 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000). 2016Gen.Stat. § 14-27.4A(c) Statutes which permit a defendant's sentence to be lengthened based on the existence of aggravating factors have a long history of review at the Supreme Court of the United States, beginning with Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 , 120 S.Ct. 2348 , 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000). | 1 | 2016–2016 |
State v. Wissink
green
1 sentence2005In State v. Wissink, 172 N.C. | 1 | 2005–2005 |
State v. Canty
green
2 sentences2001Id. at 524 , 364 S.E.2d at 413 . 2001Id. at 524 , 364 S.E.2d at 413 . | 1 | 2001–2001 |
State v. Taylor
green
2 sentences1992See State v. Rios, 322 N.C. 596, 598 , 369 S.E.2d 576, 577-78 (1988) (upholding trial court’s finding of aggravating sentencing factor which was based solely on evidence presented at defendant’s trial); Taylor, 322 N.C. at 287 , 367 S.E.2d at 668 . 1992See State v. Rios, 322 N.C. 596, 598 , 369 S.E.2d 576, 577-78 (1988) (upholding trial court’s finding of aggravating sentencing factor which was based solely on evidence presented at defendant’s trial); Taylor, 322 N.C. at 287 , 367 S.E.2d at 668 . | 1 | 1992–1992 |
State v. Parker
green
2 sentences1988State v. Parker, 315 N.C. 249 , 337 S.E. 2d 497 (1985). 1988State v. Parker, 315 N.C. 249 , 337 S.E. 2d 497 (1985). | 1 | 1988–1988 |
State v. Jones
green
2 sentences1986State v. Jones, 309 N.C. 214 , 306 S.E. 2d 451 (1983). 1986State v. Jones, 309 N.C. 214 , 306 S.E. 2d 451 (1983). | 1 | 1986–1986 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.