State v. Lunsford

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

State v. Lunsford

322 S.E.2d 192, 71 N.C. App. 455, 1984 N.C. App. LEXIS 3866

CourtCourt of Appeals of North Carolina

DecidedNovember 20, 1984

DocketNo. 8419SC151

StatusPublished

This text of 322 S.E.2d 192 (State v. Lunsford) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of North Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State v. Lunsford, 322 S.E.2d 192, 71 N.C. App. 455, 1984 N.C. App. LEXIS 3866 (N.C. Ct. App. 1984).

Pincite

Opinion

WELLS, Judge.

In his sole assignment of error, defendant contends that the trial court erred in sentencing him to a term of imprisonment in excess of the statutory presumptive term. More particularly, defendant contends that the trial court erred in failing to find as a mitigating factor that prior to arrest or at an early stage in the criminal process defendant voluntarily acknowledged wrongdoing in connection with the offense to a law enforcement officer, under the provisions of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-1340.4(a)(2)l (1983).

From the record before us, it does not appear that defendant offered any evidence on this issue. The record of evidence we have indicates that the District Attorney stated to the court that defendant did make a statement to a law enforcement officer acknowledging his participating in the break-ins. The District Attorney’s statement does not, however, show when defendant made his confession. Under these circumstances, defendant has not carried his burden of showing this mitigating factor to be [456]*456established. See State v. Winnex, 66 N.C. App. 280, 311 S.E. 2d 594 (1984).

The judgment of the trial court is

Affirmed.

Judges Arnold and Hill concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

WELLS, Judge.

In his sole assignment of error, defendant contends that the trial court erred in sentencing him to a term of imprisonment in excess of the statutory presumptive term. More particularly, defendant contends that the trial court erred in failing to find as a mitigating factor that prior to arrest or at an early stage in the criminal process defendant voluntarily acknowledged wrongdoing in connection with the offense to a law enforcement officer, under the provisions of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-1340.4(a)(2)l (1983).

From the record before us, it does not appear that defendant offered any evidence on this issue. The record of evidence we have indicates that the District Attorney stated to the court that defendant did make a statement to a law enforcement officer acknowledging his participating in the break-ins. The District Attorney’s statement does not, however, show when defendant made his confession. Under these circumstances, defendant has not carried his burden of showing this mitigating factor to be [456]*456established. See State v. Winnex, 66 N.C. App. 280, 311 S.E. 2d 594 (1984).

The judgment of the trial court is

Affirmed.

Judges Arnold and Hill concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

322 S.E.2d 192, 71 N.C. App. 455, 1984 N.C. App. LEXIS 3866, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-lunsford-ncctapp-1984.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack