State v. Massey

Supreme Court of North Carolina

State v. Massey

308 S.E.2d 332, 309 N.C. 625, 1983 N.C. LEXIS 1451

CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina

DecidedNovember 3, 1983

Docket299A83

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 308 S.E.2d 332 (State v. Massey) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court 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. Massey, 308 S.E.2d 332, 309 N.C. 625, 1983 N.C. LEXIS 1451 (N.C. 1983).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The sentencing court found, among others, the following factors in aggravation: The offense was especially heinous; defendant had a prior conviction; defendant was associated with a motorcycle gang; and defendant went to the scene armed with a shotgun intending to do revenge.

The Court of Appeals concluded there was error in each of these findings. Concerning the prior conviction circumstance, the Court of Appeals concluded it should not have been considered because there was no evidence that defendant was not indigent or was represented by counsel at the prior conviction. Because defendant did not make an issue of the validity of the prior conviction in the trial court, the Court of Appeals erred in so concluding for the reasons stated in State v. Thompson, No. 150PA83 (filed 27 September 1983). Otherwise the Court of Appeals should be affirmed. The decision of the Court of Appeals is therefore modified and affirmed accordingly.

Modified and affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

The sentencing court found, among others, the following factors in aggravation: The offense was especially heinous; defendant had a prior conviction; defendant was associated with a motorcycle gang; and defendant went to the scene armed with a shotgun intending to do revenge.

The Court of Appeals concluded there was error in each of these findings. Concerning the prior conviction circumstance, the Court of Appeals concluded it should not have been considered because there was no evidence that defendant was not indigent or was represented by counsel at the prior conviction. Because defendant did not make an issue of the validity of the prior conviction in the trial court, the Court of Appeals erred in so concluding for the reasons stated in State v. Thompson, No. 150PA83 (filed 27 September 1983). Otherwise the Court of Appeals should be affirmed. The decision of the Court of Appeals is therefore modified and affirmed accordingly.

Modified and affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

308 S.E.2d 332, 309 N.C. 625, 1983 N.C. LEXIS 1451, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-massey-nc-1983.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack