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.
9 North Carolina opinions name it 2 courts 1983–2021 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. Ahearngreen2 sentences2021Nonetheless, our Supreme Court has held that “in 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.” State v. Ahearn, 307 N.C. 584 , STATE V. 2021Nonetheless, our Supreme Court has held that “in 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.” State v. Ahearn, 307 N.C. 584 , STATE V. | 1 | 5 |
State v. Barnesgreen2 sentences1995In support of his argument defendant first cites State v. Barnes, 333 N.C. 666, 687 , 430 S.E.2d 223, 234 (1993) and State v. Westmoreland, 314 N.C. 442, 449 , 334 S.E.2d 223, 228 (1986) for the proposition that, “a conviction for which the defendant is being sentenced may not be aggravated by the defendant’s acts which form the gravamen of contemporaneous convictions of joined offenses.” However, unlike Barnes and Westmoreland , the court here arrested judgment in Counts II and III, and these convictions were not joined with Counts I and IV for sentencing purposes. 1995In support of his argument defendant first cites State v. Barnes, 333 N.C. 666, 687 , 430 S.E.2d 223, 234 (1993) and State v. Westmoreland, 314 N.C. 442, 449 , 334 S.E.2d 223, 228 (1986) for the proposition that, “a conviction for which the defendant is being sentenced may not be aggravated by the defendant’s acts which form the gravamen of contemporaneous convictions of joined offenses.” However, unlike Barnes and Westmoreland , the court here arrested judgment in Counts II and III, and these convictions were not joined with Counts I and IV for sentencing purposes. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Westmorelandgreen2 sentences1995In support of his argument defendant first cites State v. Barnes, 333 N.C. 666, 687 , 430 S.E.2d 223, 234 (1993) and State v. Westmoreland, 314 N.C. 442, 449 , 334 S.E.2d 223, 228 (1986) for the proposition that, “a conviction for which the defendant is being sentenced may not be aggravated by the defendant’s acts which form the gravamen of contemporaneous convictions of joined offenses.” However, unlike Barnes and Westmoreland , the court here arrested judgment in Counts II and III, and these convictions were not joined with Counts I and IV for sentencing purposes. 1995In support of his argument defendant first cites State v. Barnes, 333 N.C. 666, 687 , 430 S.E.2d 223, 234 (1993) and State v. Westmoreland, 314 N.C. 442, 449 , 334 S.E.2d 223, 228 (1986) for the proposition that, “a conviction for which the defendant is being sentenced may not be aggravated by the defendant’s acts which form the gravamen of contemporaneous convictions of joined offenses.” However, unlike Barnes and Westmoreland , the court here arrested judgment in Counts II and III, and these convictions were not joined with Counts I and IV for sentencing purposes. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Penleygreen2 sentences1987See State v. Penley, 318 N.C. 30 , 347 S.E. 2d 783 (1986); State v. Ahearn, 307 N.C. 584 , 300 S.E. 2d 689 (1983); and State v. Davis, 58 N.C. 1987See State v. Penley, 318 N.C. 30 , 347 S.E. 2d 783 (1986); State v. Ahearn, 307 N.C. 584 , 300 S.E. 2d 689 (1983); and State v. Davis, 58 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 |
|---|---|---|
State v. Green
green
1 sentence2014Id. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
State v. Banks
neutral
1 sentence1994App. 223 , 313 S.E.2d 183 , appeal dismissed and disc. review denied, 311 N.C. 764 , 321 S.E.2d 147 (1984). | 1 | 1994–1994 |
State v. Brown
green
2 sentences1994However, this Court addressed the same argument as applied to the same two aggravating factors in State v. Brown, 67 N.C. 1994App. 223 , 313 S.E.2d 183 , appeal dismissed and disc. review denied, 311 N.C. 764 , 321 S.E.2d 147 (1984). | 1 | 1994–1994 |
State v. Davis
green
1 sentence1987See State v. Penley, 318 N.C. 30 , 347 S.E. 2d 783 (1986); State v. Ahearn, 307 N.C. 584 , 300 S.E. 2d 689 (1983); and State v. Davis, 58 N.C. | 1 | 1987–1987 |
State v. Thompson
green
2 sentences1985The two aggravating factors are not elements of second degree murder, see State v. Thompson, 309 N.C. 421 , 422 n. 1, 307 S.E. 2d 156 , 158 n. *72 1 (1983), and they are based on separate evidence —evidence of the victim’s age and evidence of the caretaker position held by defendant. 1985The two aggravating factors are not elements of second degree murder, see State v. Thompson, 309 N.C. 421 , 422 n. 1, 307 S.E. 2d 156 , 158 n. *72 1 (1983), and they are based on separate evidence —evidence of the victim’s age and evidence of the caretaker position held by defendant. | 1 | 1985–1985 |
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.