State v. Bunting

• Court: Court of Appeals of North Carolina
• Decided: October 5, 2021
• Docket: 20-643
• Status: Published

Opinion

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NORTH CAROLINA

2021-NCCOA-532

No. COA20-643

Filed 5 October 2021

New Hanover County, Nos. 18 CRS 5278, 18 CRS 55008

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA,

v.

JAMES CHRISTOPHER BUNTING, Defendant.

Appeal by defendant from judgment entered 10 January 2020 by Judge John

E. Nobles, Jr. in New Hanover County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals

11 August 2021.

Attorney General Joshua H. Stein, by Assistant Attorney General Mary L. Maloney, for the State.

Kimberly P. Hoppin for Defendant-Appellant.

CARPENTER, Judge.

¶1 James Christopher Bunting (“Defendant”) appeals from judgment after a jury

convicted him of one count of felony sale or delivery of heroin, one count of felony sale

or delivery of heroin within 1,000 feet of a school, and one count of felony possession

with intent to sell or deliver heroin, and after Defendant plead guilty to habitual felon

status pursuant to a plea agreement. On appeal, Defendant argues the trial court

erred in sentencing him as a prior record level IV offender because it was unclear STATE V. BUNTING

Opinion of the Court

from the record and prior record level worksheet whether the felony convictions used

to establish his habitual felon status were improperly included in the trial court’s

calculation of his prior conviction points and prior record level, to which Defendant

stipulated. Furthermore, Defendant contends the State failed to meet its burden of

proving his out-of-state offenses were felonies in the respective states of origin, or

that they were substantially similar to felonies in North Carolina. After careful

review, we remand for a new sentencing hearing because the terms of the stipulation

fail to definitively identify which convictions the trial court used to calculate

Defendant’s prior record level.

I. Factual & Procedural Background

¶2 On 27 June 2018, Defendant was arrested and charged with the following

offenses: (1) sale and delivery of a Schedule I controlled substance, in violation of N.C.

Gen. Stat. § 90.95(a)(1); (2) the manufacture, sale, and delivery, or possession of a

controlled substance within 1,000 feet of a school, in violation of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 90-

95(e)(8); and (3) possession with intent to sell or deliver a Schedule I controlled

substance, in violation of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 90.95(a)(1). On 29 October 2018, a New

Hanover County grand jury returned a true bill of indictment for the three drug-

related offenses under case file number 18 CRS 55008. On the same day, Defendant

was charged in a true bill of indictment with obtaining the status of habitual felon in

violation of N.C. Gen. Stat. 14-7.1 under case file number 18 CRS 5278. This true STATE V. BUNTING

bill of indictment alleged Defendant was previously convicted of at least three

successive felonies including possession with the intent to sell or distribute cocaine

on 18 May 2001, possession of cocaine on 12 January 2006, and possession of

marijuana on 28 October 2013.

¶3 On 10 January 2020, Defendant was tried by jury and was unanimously

convicted of the three felony drug charges. Defendant then entered into a plea

agreement in which Defendant agreed to plead guilty to his status as an habitual

felon. Defense counsel and the prosecutor signed, and Defendant stipulated to, a

prior record level worksheet prepared by the State listing eighteen total convictions.

Of the eighteen total prior convictions, four convictions relate to or establish

Defendant’s habitual felon status, five are out-of-state convictions, two are class A1

or 1 misdemeanor convictions eligible for calculating Defendant’s prior record level,

two are Class H or I North Carolina felonies eligible for purposes of counting towards

Defendant’s prior record level, and five are North Carolina misdemeanor convictions

not eligible for purposes of counting towards Defendant’s prior record level. Four of

the five total out-of-state convictions were crossed through by hand. Under Section

V of the worksheet, an aggregate of 18 points was handwritten beside ten of the

eighteen prior convictions. Of the convictions assigned points, three are out-of-state

convictions, two are misdemeanor convictions, two are North Carolina felony

convictions, and three are felony convictions used to establish Defendant’s status as STATE V. BUNTING

an habitual felon. All but one of the three out-of-state convictions assigned points

were crossed out. Defendant’s prior felony Class H and I convictions under Section I

of the worksheet were initially assigned 14 points—this number was crossed out by

hand and changed to 10 points without explanation. Defendant’s prior Class A1 or 1

misdemeanor convictions were assigned 2 points. Thus, Defendant was assigned a

total of 12 prior record level points on the worksheet, which classified Defendant as

a prior record level IV offender for sentencing purposes.

¶4 Defendant again stipulated during an exchange between the trial court, the

prosecutor, and Defendant’s counsel to the calculation of points and his status as a

prior record level IV offender. Following this colloquy, the State summarized the

evidence it would have presented had the case proceeded to trial, and Defendant did

not object to the State’s factual basis for finding habitual felon status. The State

stipulated to certain mitigating factors presented by defense counsel, including

Defendant’s voluntary acknowledgment of wrongdoing at an early stage of the

criminal process, Defendant’s support system in the community, Defendant’s support

to his family, and Defendant’s gainful employment. The trial court accepted the

mitigating factors proffered by Defendant, consolidated Defendant’s convictions for

judgment, and entered judgment. It arrested judgment on the charge of manufacture,

sale, and delivery, or possession of a controlled substance within 1,000 feet of a school.

After calculating Defendant’s prior record level at IV based on 12 prior record points, STATE V. BUNTING

and finding mitigating factors outweighed aggravating factors, the trial court judge

sentenced Defendant to a minimum term of 80 months and a maximum term of 108

months of imprisonment in the custody of the North Carolina Department of

Correction. Defendant gave notice of appeal in open court.

II. Jurisdiction

¶5 This Court has jurisdiction to address Defendant’s appeal from a final

judgment pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7A-27(b) (2019) and N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-

1444 (2019).

III. Issue

¶6 The issues presented on appeal are whether: (1) there is competent evidence

in the record to support Defendant’s prior record level IV where he stipulated to his

prior conviction points and prior record level; (2) Defendant received ineffective

assistance of counsel to the extent he stipulated to his out-of-state convictions; and

(3) the trial court committed prejudicial error in calculating Defendant’s prior record

level points.

IV. Prior Record Level Calculation

¶7 As an initial matter, we address the State’s contention that Defendant’s

stipulation as to his prior record level “negate[d] the basis for appeal.” We disagree

and note Defendant has a direct right of appeal from the trial court’s alleged

miscalculation of his prior record level pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-1444(a2)(1) STATE V. BUNTING

(2019).

¶8 Next, Defendant contends the trial court committed reversible error in

calculating he had 12 prior conviction points and sentencing him as a prior record

level IV. The State maintains Defendant’s appeal seeking assignment of error on the

calculation of the prior record level worksheet is without merit and should be denied

because Defendant stipulated to his prior convictions. For the reasons set forth

below, we conclude Defendant’s stipulation to his prior conviction points and prior

record level was invalid.

A. Standard of Review

¶9 “The determination of an offender’s prior record level is a conclusion of law that

is subject to de novo review on appeal.” State v. Bohler, 198 N.C. App. 631, 633, 681

S.E.2d 801, 804 (2009) (citing State v. Fraley, 182 N.C. App. 683, 691, 643 S.E.2d 39,

44 (2007)). Therefore, we consider “whether the competent evidence in the record

adequately supports the trial court’s [determination]” of Defendant’s prior record

level. Id. at 633, 681 S.E.2d at 804.

B. Analysis

¶ 10 The Structured Sentencing Act of North Carolina provides that “the [trial]

court shall determine the prior record level for the offender pursuant to [N.C. Gen.

Stat. §] 15A-1340.14” before imposing a sentence on the defendant. N.C. Gen. Stat.

§ 15A-1340.13 (2019). “The prior record level of a felony offender is determined by STATE V. BUNTING

calculating the sum of the points assigned to each of the offender’s prior convictions

that the court, or . . . the jury, finds to have been proved in accordance with . . . section

[15A-1340.14(a)].” N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-1340.14(a) (2019). Class A1 and Class 1

prior misdemeanor convictions are assigned 1 point each. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-

1340.14(a)(5). Class H or I felony convictions are assigned 2 points each. N.C. Gen.

Stat. § 15A-1340.14(a)(4). “In determining the prior record level, convictions used to

establish a person’s status as an habitual felon shall not be used.” N.C. Gen. Stat. §

14-7.6 (2019).

¶ 11 “The State bears the burden of proving, by a preponderance of the evidence,

that a prior conviction exists and that the offender before the court is the same person

as the offender named in the prior conviction.” N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-1340.14(f)(4)

(2019). “Stipulation of the parties” is one method by which a prior conviction may be

proved. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-1340.14(f)(1) (2019). As our Supreme Court has stated,

the “terms [of a stipulation] must be definite and certain in order to afford a basis for

judicial decision . . . .” State v. Powell, 254 N.C. 231, 234, 118 S.E.2d 617, 619 (1961),

superseded by statute on other grounds, N.C. Gen. Stat. § 20-179(a) (2003) (citation

omitted). “[P]roof by stipulation necessarily includes the factual basis and legal

application to the facts underlying the conviction. Once a defendant makes this

stipulation, the trial court then makes a legal determination by reviewing the proper

classification of an offense so as to calculate the points assigned to that prior offense.” STATE V. BUNTING

State v. Arrington, 371 N.C. 518, 524, 819 S.E.2d 329, 333 (2018).

¶ 12 Here, Defendant does not challenge the 2 prior record level points assessed for

two misdemeanor convictions but maintains the record is unclear as to which five

felony convictions listed on the prior record level worksheet were counted for purposes

of determining his prior felony conviction points totaled 10, and his prior record level

is IV. He asserts the trial court was prohibited from including the three predicate

felony convictions that establish his habitual felon status in the indictment. The

State argues that even if the convictions that are crossed out are not counted, there

are 14 remaining points that can be counted towards Defendant’s prior record level.

Additionally, the State maintains that since Defendant and the State stipulated to

the worksheet, Defendant’s prior record level was agreed upon by the parties, and

therefore, the State met its burden of proving Defendant’s prior record level by the

preponderance of the evidence.

¶ 13 We disagree with the State’s assessment. In this case, 6 of the 14 remaining

points—after the crossed-out convictions are excluded—are attributable to the three

felony convictions that were used as a predicate for Defendant’s status of habitual

felon, and therefore, cannot be used in determining Defendant’s prior record level.

See N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-7.6. However, we are unable to discern from the record

whether the trial court did in fact apply the three predicate felony convictions used

to establish Defendant’s habitual status in its prior record level calculation or STATE V. BUNTING

whether the trial court used all or some of the out-of-state convictions in calculating

¶ 14 The State relies on State v. Arrington in its assertion that the State met its

burden of proof as to Defendant’s prior conviction points and prior record level

because both parties agreed to the stipulation. See 371 N.C. at 524–25, 819 S.E.2d

at 333. We find State v. Arrington readily distinguishable from the case sub judice.

In Arrington, the felonies used to calculate the defendant’s prior record level were not

unclear or indeterminate from the record. Rather, in that case, our Supreme Court

considered a defendant’s appeal of right after the Court of Appeals held the

defendant’s stipulation as to the type of North Carolina second-degree murder

conviction, following the state legislature’s division of the offense into two

classifications, “was an improper legal stipulation.” Id. at 519, 521, 819 S.E.2d at

330–31. The Court reversed the Court of Appeals’ decision and held the classification

of the offense was a question of fact; thus, the defendant properly stipulated to the

question of fact regarding the conviction classification as well as his prior record level

points. Id. at 527, 819 S.E.2d at 335.

¶ 15 In the instant case, the trial court had to have either included one or more of

Defendant’s out-of-state convictions or one or more of Defendant’s prior felonies used

to establish his habitual felon status in order to reach 12 points in calculating

Defendant’s prior conviction points. If the out-of-state convictions were used, then STATE V. BUNTING

the State failed to prove by the preponderance of the evidence that Defendant’s

strangulation in the second-degree conviction was substantially similar to a

particular North Carolina felony. See Bohler, 198 N.C. App. 631, 633, 681 S.E.2d 801,

804 (“[T]he trial court may not accept a stipulation to the effect that a particular out-

of-state conviction is ‘substantially similar’ to a particular North Carolina felony or

misdemeanor.”). Unlike Arrington, in which the defendant properly stipulated to a

question of fact, in this case, Defendant could not have properly stipulated to a

question of law nor could he have properly stipulated to a prior conviction level

calculation that included the felonies used as a predicate for establishing his status

as an habitual felon. See State v. Hanton, 175 N.C. App. 250, 623 S.E.2d 600 (2006),

disc. rev. denied, 362 N.C. 477, 666 S.E.2d 766 (2008) “([T]he question of whether a

conviction under an out-of-state statute is substantially similar to an offense under

North Carolina statutes is a question of law to be resolved by the trial court.”); State

v. Chappelle, 193 N.C. App. 313, 333, 667 S.E.2d 327, 339 (2008) (“[A] stipulation

regarding out-of-state convictions is insufficient, absent a determination of

substantial similarity by the trial court, to support the trial court’s prior record

determination.”); N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-1340.14(e) (establishing the default

classification for out-of-state felony convictions is “Class I”); N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-7.6.

¶ 16 We hold the signed prior record level worksheet was not sufficiently “definite

and certain” to constitute a valid stipulation by Defendant. See Powell, 254 N.C. at STATE V. BUNTING

234, 118 S.E.2d at 619. The matter must be remanded to the trial court for re-

sentencing.

¶ 17 To avoid errors on remand, the State must meet its burden of proof with respect

to proving Defendant’s out-of-state convictions. See N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-1340.14(e)

(2019). Although Defendant can properly stipulate to the existence of offenses and

whether the offenses are felonies or misdemeanors, Defendant cannot stipulate that

an out-of-state conviction is substantially similar to a North Carolina offense. See

Bohler, 198 N.C. App. at 637–38, 681 S.E.2d at 806; State v. Burgess, 216 N.C. App.

54, 58–59, 715 S.E.2d 867, 871 (2011). We note Defendant’s prior record level

worksheet is evidence of his binding stipulation as to the existence of the out-of-state

convictions and as to the fact the offenses were felonies under the law of the states

where the offenses originated. See Bohler, 198 N.C. App. at 637–38, 681 S.E.2d at

806.

¶ 18 Because we remand the case for a new sentencing hearing, we need not

consider whether Defendant received ineffective assistance of counsel with respect to

his stipulations to out-of-court convictions or whether the trial court committed

prejudicial error by miscalculating Defendant’s prior record level.

V. Conclusion

¶ 19 We hold Defendant’s stipulation as to his prior felony convictions is not

sufficiently definite because we cannot reasonably determine whether his prior STATE V. BUNTING

felonies, which predicated his habitual felon status, were improperly used by the trial

court in calculating Defendant’s prior record level. We remand the matter to the trial

court for a re-sentencing hearing.

REMANDED FOR RE-SENTENCING.

Judges DILLON and INMAN concur.