State v. Sims

• Court: Supreme Court of North Carolina
• Decided: March 21, 2025
• Docket: 297PA18
• Status: Published

Opinion

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NORTH CAROLINA

No. 297PA18

Filed 21 March 2025

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA

v. ANTWAUN KYRAL SIMS

On discretionary review pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 7A-31 of a unanimous decision

of the Court of Appeals, 260 N.C. App. 665 (2018), finding no error after an appeal

from an order entered on 21 March 2014 by Judge Jack W. Jenkins in Superior Court,

Onslow County. Heard in the Supreme Court on 9 April 2024.

Jeff Jackson, Attorney General, by Kimberly N. Callahan, Assistant Attorney General, for the State.

Glenn Gerding, Appellate Defender, by David W. Andrews, Assistant Appellate Defender, for defendant.

BERGER, Justice.

Defendant was sentenced to life in prison without parole for his actions in the

abduction and murder of Ms. Elleze Kennedy. Defendant was seventeen years old at

the time of the murder. In motions for appropriate relief filed with the sentencing

court, defendant made two primary arguments: (1) that gender bias in jury selection

pursuant to J.E.B. v. Alabama ex rel. T.B., 511 U.S. 127 (1994) entitles him to a new

trial; and (2) that his sentence of life in prison without parole runs counter to the

constitutional requirements set forth in Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (2012) and STATE V. SIMS

Opinion of the Court

N.C.G.S. §§ 15A-1340.19A to -1340.19D. Defendant’s J.E.B. claim is procedurally

barred, and we affirm the Court of Appeals judgment holding that there was no error

in defendant’s sentence of life without parole.

I. Factual and Procedural Background

Eighty-nine-year-old Elleze Kennedy was abducted from her driveway and

murdered by defendant and his co-defendants on 3 January 2000. At trial, the State’s

evidence tended to show that co-defendant Christopher Bell told Chad Williams and

defendant that he wanted to steal a vehicle and flee the state to avoid a pending

probation violation hearing. Defendant and Williams agreed to help Bell.

The three identified Ms. Kennedy as their target and followed her home, where

they confronted her with a BB gun and demanded that she turn over her car keys.

When Ms. Kennedy resisted, Bell hit her repeatedly in the face with the gun until she

was unconscious. Defendant drove Ms. Kennedy’s vehicle away after she was thrown

into the back seat of the car. She was later moved to the trunk of the vehicle.

Defendant and his co-defendants stopped to smoke marijuana and left Ms.

Kennedy in the trunk. While there, Williams said he was not going to travel out-of-

state in a stolen vehicle with Ms. Kennedy in the trunk. In response, Bell and

defendant left Williams at the house. They later returned and convinced Williams to

get back into the car by telling him that they had dropped Ms. Kennedy off at a

McDonalds. Before leaving the house, defendant obtained a rag and cleaned Ms.

Kennedy’s blood from the backseat of the vehicle.

-2- STATE V. SIMS

Williams thereafter discovered that Ms. Kennedy was still in the trunk of the

car, but he remained with the group. At defendant’s urging, the men drove the car

to a field, parked the car, and opened the trunk. Ms. Kennedy was moving around

and moaning in pain. Williams suggested they let her go, but Bell replied that Ms.

Kennedy had seen his face and he was going “to leave no witnesses.” Bell asked

defendant for his lighter so that he could burn his blood-covered jacket. Bell threw

the burning jacket into the backseat of the car while Ms. Kennedy was still alive in

the trunk.

The next morning, Bell asked defendant to go check to see if Ms. Kennedy was

dead, and Bell stated that if she was not, defendant should burn the rest of the car.

Defendant discovered that Ms. Kennedy was dead in the trunk of the car and that

the windows of the car were smoked. In an attempt to cover up the evidence,

defendant and Bell wiped the car down intending to remove fingerprints and then

left the scene.

Police discovered the stolen car with Ms. Kennedy’s body in the trunk that

same morning. Among the evidence obtained at the crime scene were footprint

markings on the ground around the car, Bell’s burned jacket, the cloth defendant used

to wipe up Ms. Kennedy’s blood, latent fingerprints on the car, and hairs in the back

seat, which were matches to defendant and Bell. Upon searching Ms. Kennedy’s

residence, police discovered a puddle of blood in the driveway, a pair of eyeglasses, a

dental partial, a walking cane, and blood smear marks on the driveway consistent

-3- STATE V. SIMS

with dragging.

An autopsy report revealed that Ms. Kennedy suffered blunt force injuries to

her face, which resulted in facial fractures and loosened teeth. In addition, Ms.

Kennedy’s body had extensive bruising of her torso consistent with being kicked. The

extent of soot in Ms. Kennedy’s trachea and lungs led to the conclusion that she was

alive at the time that the car was burned but that she ultimately succumbed to carbon

monoxide poisoning.

Williams was questioned by police and confessed to his involvement and the

role of his co-defendants in Ms. Kennedy’s murder. Williams pleaded guilty to first-

degree murder, first-degree kidnapping, and assault with a deadly weapon inflicting

serious injury, and he agreed to testify against defendant and Bell at trial.

Defendant and Bell were arrested and subsequently indicted for first-degree

murder, first-degree kidnapping, assault with a deadly weapon inflicting serious

injury, and burning personal property. The State revealed its intent to seek the death

penalty against both defendant and Bell, and their matters were joined for trial. On

14 August 2001, an Onslow County jury found defendant and Bell guilty of first-

degree murder under the theories of felony murder and premeditated and deliberated

murder. Defendant was also convicted of first-degree kidnapping and burning of

personal property.

Following the capital sentencing hearing, defendant was sentenced to life in

prison without parole, followed by consecutive sentences totaling 108 to 139 months

-4- STATE V. SIMS

in prison. Bell was sentenced to death. Both defendant and Bell appealed their

convictions.

On 18 November 2003, the Court of Appeals held that there was no error in

defendant’s conviction and sentence and concluded that defendant received a fair trial

free of prejudicial error. State v. Sims, 161 N.C. App. 183, 196 (2003). This Court

upheld Bell’s convictions and death sentence on 7 October 2004. State v. Bell, 359

N.C. 1 (2004), cert. denied, 544 U.S. 1052 (2005).

On 8 April 2013, defendant filed a motion for appropriate relief in superior

court, arguing that his sentence of mandatory life imprisonment without parole as a

juvenile was unconstitutional under Miller, 567 U.S. 460. On 2 July 2013,

defendant’s motion was granted, and a resentencing hearing was ordered pursuant

to this state’s Miller-fix statute. See N.C.G.S. § 15A-1340.19B (2023). On 20

February 2014, the resentencing hearing was held before the Honorable Jack W.

Jenkins, and the MAR court1 determined that defendant’s sentence of life without

parole was to remain in place.

On 9 September 2016, defendant filed a petition for writ of certiorari with the

Court of Appeals seeking review of the MAR order. The Court of Appeals allowed

defendant’s petition and subsequently issued a published decision holding there was

no error. State v. Sims, 260 N.C. App. 665, 682-83 (2018). Specifically, the Court of

Appeals determined that the sentencing court did not abuse its discretion in weighing

1 The MAR court is hereinafter referred to as the sentencing court as appropriate.

-5- STATE V. SIMS

the Miller factors and resentencing defendant to life without parole. Id. at 682.

On 11 September 2018, defendant filed with this Court a notice of appeal based

upon a constitutional question and a petition for discretionary review. On 7

December 2018, this Court dismissed defendant’s notice of appeal based upon a

constitutional question but allowed the petition for discretionary review to address

whether the Court of Appeals erred in upholding defendant’s life without parole

sentence under Miller.

In addition, on 8 October 2019, while the appeal was pending before this Court,

defendant filed another motion for appropriate relief, asserting for the first time a

claim of gender-discrimination during jury selection under J.E.B., 511 U.S. 127.

Consequently, this Court entered an order remanding the case to the Superior Court,

Onslow County, for an evidentiary hearing. This Court also remanded co-defendant

Bell’s case to the Superior Court, Onslow County, for a joint evidentiary hearing with

defendant.

On 25 January 2022, the superior court issued an order finding that the State’s

use of a peremptory strike for juror Viola Morrow violated J.E.B. We then ordered

supplemental briefing in both cases regarding the merits of their J.E.B. claims. We

address both issues below.

II. Analysis

A. J.E.B. Claims

-6- STATE V. SIMS

Section 15A-1419 “provides a mandatory procedural bar for issues a party

seeks to litigate in post-conviction proceedings.” State v. Tucker, 385 N.C. 471, 484

(2023), cert. denied, 145 S. Ct. 196 (2024). The procedural bar precludes review when,

relevant here, “[u]pon a previous appeal the defendant was in a position to adequately

raise the ground or issue underlying the present motion but did not do so.” N.C.G.S.

§ 15A-1419(a)(3) (2023). “[I]t is well settled that constitutional matters that are not

raised and passed upon at trial will not be reviewed for the first time on appeal[.]”

State v. Garcia, 358 N.C. 382, 420 (2004).

“An exception to the procedural bar applies only if the defendant can

demonstrate: (1) ‘[g]ood cause for excusing the ground for denial listed in subsection

(a) of this section and ... actual prejudice resulting from the defendant’s claim,’ or (2)

‘[t]hat failure to consider the defendant’s claim will result in a fundamental

miscarriage of justice.’ ” Tucker, 385 N.C. at 485 (alterations in original) (quoting

N.C.G.S. § 15A-1419(b) (2021)).

“[G]ood cause” only exists if the defendant demonstrates “by a preponderance

of the evidence that his failure to raise the claim or file a timely motion” was:

(1) The result of State action in violation of the United States Constitution or the North Carolina Constitution including ineffective assistance of trial or appellate counsel;

(2) The result of the recognition of a new federal or State right which is retroactively applicable; or

(3) Based on a factual predicate that could not have been discovered through the exercise of reasonable diligence in

-7- STATE V. SIMS

time to present the claim on a previous State or federal postconviction review.

N.C.G.S. § 15A-1419(c) (2023).

“[A] fundamental miscarriage of justice” under subsection (b)(2) is established

only when a defendant demonstrates by a preponderance of the evidence that “but for

the error, no reasonable fact finder would have found the defendant guilty of the

underlying offense”; or, when reviewing a death sentence, a defendant demonstrates

“by clear and convincing evidence that, but for the error, no reasonable fact finder

would have found the defendant eligible for the death penalty.” N.C.G.S. § 15A-

1419(e) (2023).

Similar to his co-defendant in State v. Bell, No. 86A02-2 (N.C. Mar. 21, 2025),

defendant makes no argument that failure to consider his J.E.B. claim will result in

a fundamental miscarriage of justice. Defendant instead argues that he was

“[u]ltimately . . . not in a position to assert a violation of J.E.B. in his direct appeal[.]”

Defendant acknowledges in his brief to this Court that his J.E.B. argument was

neither raised at trial, nor argued on direct appeal, but he contends that because the

prosecutor’s affidavit2 was not released until well after the trial, he could not have

discovered it through reasonable diligence.

For the reasons stated in this Court’s opinion filed today in his co-defendant’s

matter, see State v. Bell, No. 86A02-2 (N.C. Mar. 21, 2025), and based upon a fair

2 For background information on this affidavit, see State v. Bell, No. 86A02-2 (N.C.

March 21, 2025).

-8- STATE V. SIMS

consideration of the record, defendant’s J.E.B. claim is procedurally barred pursuant

to N.C.G.S. § 15A-1419. See Tucker, 385 N.C. at 484-86.

B. Defendant’s LWOP Sentence

Defendant poses two challenges to the sentencing court’s 21 March 2014 order

affirming his sentence of life without parole. First, defendant asserts that the

sentence violates the Eighth Amendment because defendant “showed that he was not

irreparably corrupt and that his role in Ms. Kennedy’s murder was the result of

transient immaturity.” Second, defendant contends that the Court of Appeals erred

when it determined that the sentencing court did not abuse its discretion when

considering mitigating evidence presented by defendant. Related thereto, defendant

also contends that this matter should be remanded to the Court of Appeals because

that court failed to apply relevant legal standards in rendering its opinion.

For each of his arguments, defendant essentially asks this Court to reweigh

evidence, and for the reasons discussed below, we affirm defendant’s sentence of life

in prison without parole.

1. Constitutional Principles

“Absent specific authority, it is not the role of an appellate court to substitute

its judgment for that of the sentencing court as to the appropriateness of a particular

sentence; rather, in applying the Eighth Amendment the appellate court decides only

whether the sentence . . . is within constitutional limits.” State v. Ysaguire, 309 N.C.

780, 786 (1983) (quoting Solem v. Helm, 463 U.S. 277, 290 n.16 (1983)). Moreover,

-9- STATE V. SIMS

“[i]n non-capital cases we do not, and are not required to, conduct factual comparisons

of different cases to determine whether a given sentence is constitutional.” Id. at 786

n.3.

The Eighth Amendment guarantees the right to be free from “cruel and

unusual punishments.” U.S. Const. amend. VIII. The Supreme Court of the United

States has opined that this right “flows from the basic precept of justice that

punishment for crime should be graduated and proportioned to both the offender and

the offense.” Miller, 567 U.S. at 469 (cleaned up). Because of the inherent differences

between juveniles and adults, “children are constitutionally different from adults for

purposes of sentencing.” Id. at 471. But see State v. Tirado, No. 267PA21 (N.C. Jan.

31, 2025) (holding that Article I, Section 27 of our state constitution does not provide

juveniles with the more robust sentencing protections the Supreme Court of the

United States has developed in its Eighth Amendment jurisprudence and is to be

read consistent with the Eighth Amendment).

In 2012, the Supreme Court of the United States struck down sentencing

schemes which imposed mandatory sentences of life without parole for juveniles

without first allowing a sentencing court to consider the “mitigating qualities of

youth.” Miller, 567 U.S. at 476 (cleaned up). According to Miller, a sentencing court

must “take into account how children are different, and how those differences counsel

against irrevocably sentencing them to a lifetime in prison.” Id. at 480. This requires

a sentencing court to consider each individual defendant and “take into account the

-10- STATE V. SIMS

differences among defendants and [their] crimes.” Id. at 480 n.8. Foundationally,

Miller permits sentences of life without parole for juvenile murderers provided the

sentencing court (1) considers a defendant’s youth in mitigation, and (2) has

discretion to impose a punishment other than life without parole. See id.

The Supreme Court subsequently clarified that Miller does not create an

outright ban on juvenile life-without-parole sentences, but it does prohibit such

sentences “for all but the rarest of juvenile offenders, those whose crimes reflect

permanent incorrigibility.” Montgomery v. Louisiana, 577 U.S. 190, 209 (2016)

(emphasis added). The Court also concluded that “a finding of fact regarding a child’s

incorrigibility . . . is not required.” Id. at 211.

The Supreme Court recently reiterated that all a sentencing court must do to

comply with the Eighth Amendment is “follow a certain process—considering an

offender’s youth and attendant characteristics—before imposing” a particular

penalty. Jones v. Mississippi, 141 S. Ct. 1307, 1311 (2021) (quoting Miller, 567 U.S.

at 483). See also United States v. Holt, 116 F.4th 599, 607 (6th Cir. 2024) (“If

sentencing courts consider a juvenile defendant’s youth as one factor in the

sentencing calculus, Miller does not prohibit the court from imposing a life sentence

as a ‘discretionary’ matter.”); Helm v. Thornell, 112 F.4th 674, 683 (9th Cir. 2024) (a

sentencing hearing “where youth and its attendant characteristics are considered as

sentencing factors enforces the Eighth Amendment’s substantive limits.” (cleaned

up)); Bell v. Uribe, 748 F.3d 857, 870 (9th Cir. 2014) (“[b]ecause the sentencing judge

-11- STATE V. SIMS

[] consider[ed] both mitigating and aggravating factors under a sentencing scheme

that affords discretion and leniency, there is no violation of Miller”); United States v.

Briones, 35 F.4th 1150, 1156 (9th Cir. 2021) (“Jones clarified that a discretionary

sentencing system . . . suffices to ensure individualized consideration of a defendant’s

youth.”); Jessup v. Shinn, 31 F.4th 1262, 1266 (9th Cir. 2022) (“Miller requires, for a

juvenile offender, an individualized sentencing hearing during which the sentencing

judge assesses whether the juvenile defendant warrants a sentence of life with the

possibility of parole.”).

According to Jones, it is the adherence to the sentencing procedure enunciated

in Miller – consideration of the murderer’s age, “diminished culpability[,] and

heightened capacity for change,” id. at 1316 (cleaned up) – that “helps ensure that

life without parole sentences are imposed only in cases where that sentence is

appropriate[.]” Id. at 108–112. Thus, it is the discretionary sentencing protocol itself

that “help[s] make life without-parole sentences relatively rare for murderers under

18.” Id. at 112 (cleaned up).

To ensure juvenile sentences complied with evolving federal jurisprudence, the

legislature codified the Miller “factors” in N.C.G.S. § 15A-1340.19B. The Miller-fix

statute “gave trial courts the discretion to determine whether juvenile murderers

receive life without parole or the lesser sentence of life imprisonment with

parole . . . . In making this determination, the trial court must consider certain

enumerated mitigating factors along with any other mitigating factor or

-12- STATE V. SIMS

circumstance.” Tirado, slip op. at 4-5 (cleaned up).

Pursuant to the Miller-fix, when a juvenile has been convicted of first-degree

murder on the theory of premeditation and deliberation, the sentencing court must

conduct a sentencing hearing to determine whether a sentence of life without parole

is warranted. N.C.G.S. § 15A-1340.19B(a)(2). At this hearing,

[t]he defendant or the defendant’s counsel may submit mitigating circumstances to the court, including, but not limited to, the following factors:

(1) Age at the time of the offense.

(2) Immaturity.

(3) Ability to appreciate the risks and consequences of the conduct.

(4) Intellectual capacity.

(5) Prior record.

(6) Mental health.

(7) Familial or peer pressure exerted upon the defendant.

(8) Likelihood that the defendant would benefit from rehabilitation in confinement.

(9) Any other mitigating factor or circumstance.

N.C.G.S. § 15A-1340.19B(c). A sentencing court is required to “consider any

mitigating factors” presented, and its sentencing order “shall include findings on the

absence or presence of any mitigating factors and such other findings as the court

deems appropriate.” N.C.G.S. § 15A-1340.19C(a) (2023).

-13- STATE V. SIMS

This statutory scheme “facially conform[s] to the federal constitutional case

law,” State v. Conner, 381 N.C. 643, 666 (2022), because it “provide[s] sufficient

guidance to allow a sentencing judge to make a proper, non-arbitrary determination

of the sentence that should be imposed upon a juvenile.” State v. James, 371 N.C. 77,

95 (2018). The statutory language provides no presumption in favor of either

potential sentence, but instead “treats the sentencing decision required by N.C.G.S.

§ 15A-1340.19C(a) as a choice between two equally appropriate sentencing

alternatives” consistent with Miller. Id. at 90.

In its resentencing order, the sentencing court made the following findings of

fact:3

1. The Court finds as the facts of the murder the facts as stated in State v. Sims, 161 N.C. App. 183 (2003).

2. The Court finds that the murder in this case was a brutal murder. The Court finds instructive the trial/sentencing jury’s finding beyond a reasonable doubt that the murder was “especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel” pursuant to N.C.G.S. 15A- 2000(e)(9). According to the trial testimony from Dr. Carl Barr, Ms. Kennedy had blunt force trauma all over her body . . . . Soot had penetrated deep into her lungs, meaning that she was alive when her car was set on fire with her in it, and she therefore died from suffocation from carbon monoxide poisoning.

3 Defendant did not challenge these findings of fact, and as such, they “are deemed to

be supported by competent evidence and are binding on appeal.” State v. Cobb, 381 N.C. 161, 164 (2022) (cleaned up); see also Cherry Cmty. Org. v. Sellars, 381 N.C. 239, 246 (2022) (unchallenged findings are “presumed to be supported by competent evidence and are binding on appeal” (cleaned up)).

-14- STATE V. SIMS

3. The Court finds that the defendant has not been a model prisoner while in prison. His prison records indicate that he has committed and been found responsible for well over 20 infractions since he has been in prison.

4. The Court finds that the defendant, although expressing remorse during the hearing, has not demonstrated remorse based on his actions and statements. During a meeting with a prison psychiatrist on January 20, 2009, the defendant complained that he was in prison and should not be. Further, the Court reviewed materials and heard evidence that as a juvenile in Florida, the defendant had been charged with armed robbery but denied any culpability in the case. Also, this Court heard and reviewed evidence that the defendant was removed from Hobbton High School in September 1998 in large part due to bad behavior. Specifically, the Court notes that defendant was accused, along with two others, of stealing from the boy’s locker room after school as part of a group, but again denied doing anything wrong. The school specifically found that Sims’ acts during this theft were not due to his learning disabilities. This Court notes in all three incidents, the Florida armed robbery, the Hobbton high school theft, and the murder of Ms. Kennedy, the defendant was with a group of people, and in the light most favorable to him, was at a minimum a criminally culpable member of the group but was unwilling to admit any personal wrongdoing.

5. The Court finds that Dr. Tom Harbin testified that the defendant knew right from wrong. Further, Dr. Harbin testified that the defendant would have known that the acts constituting the kidnapping [and the] murder were clearly wrong.

6. The Court finds that Dr. Tom Harbin testified that the defendant was a follower, and was easily influenced. Dr. Harbin testified that the defendant may not see himself as responsible for an act if he himself did not actually perform the act even if he helped in the performance of

-15- STATE V. SIMS

the act. Further, Dr. Harbin testified that the defendant has a harder time paying attention than others and a harder time restraining himself than others. Dr. Harbin testified that the defendant had poor social skills, very poor judgment, would be easily distracted and would be less focused than others. Further, the defendant has a hard time interacting with others and finds it harder to engage others and predict what others might do.

7. The Court finds that while this evidence was presented by the defendant to try to mitigate his actions on the night Ms. Kennedy was murdered, that this evidence also demonstrates that the defendant is dangerous. Dr. Harbin acknowledge[d] on cross-examination that all of the mental health issues he identified in the defendant, taken as a whole, could make him dangerous.

8. The Court finds that the defendant was an instrumental part of Ms. Kennedy’s murder. She died from carbon monoxide poisoning from inhaling carbon monoxide while in the trunk of her car when her car was set on fire. According to witness testimony at the trial, the defendant provided the lighter that Chris Bell used to light the jacket on fire that was thrown in Ms. Kennedy’s car and eventually caused her death.

9. The Court finds that the evidence at trial clearly demonstrated that the defendant did numerous things to try to hide or destroy the evidence that would point to the defendant’s guilt. The most obvious part is his participation in killing Ms. Kennedy, the ultimate piece of evidence against the defendants. Additionally, this defendant was the one who drove the car to its isolated last resting place in an attempt to hide it, even asking his co-defendants if he had hidden it well enough. Further, he personally went back to the car the morning after the night it was set on fire to make sure Ms. Kennedy was dead.

10. The Court finds that the physical evidence demonstrated not only his guilt, but specifically demonstrated the integral role the defendant played in

-16- STATE V. SIMS

Ms. Kennedy’s death. Fingerprints, DNA, and footwear impressions at the scene where Ms. Kennedy was burned alive in her car all matched the defendant. Most notably, Ms. Kennedy died in the trunk of her car, and the palmprint on the trunk of the car, the only print found on the trunk, matched the defendant.

The sentencing court thereafter analyzed the Miller factors in light of the

underlying facts as directed by N.C.G.S. § 15A-1340.19B. The sentencing court

specifically addressed in its written order defendant’s age, immaturity, ability to

appreciate the risks of the conduct, intellectual capacity, prior record, mental health,

familial and peer pressure, likelihood defendant would benefit from rehabilitation in

confinement, and other mitigating factors and circumstances. Thus, the sentencing

court complied with Miller when it weighed factors attendant to defendant’s youth

and, appreciating the discretion available, sentenced defendant to life in prison

without parole.

Defendant contends, however, that his sentence violates the Eighth

Amendment because the evidence showed that his role in Ms. Kennedy’s murder

reflects transient immaturity and that he is “not one of the exceedingly rare juveniles

who are irreparably corrupt.” As stated above, however, it is the adherence to the

sentencing procedure enunciated in Miller that provides the individualized

consideration of a defendant’s age and attendant circumstances of youth, combined

with the nature of the crime, that will “make life-without-parole sentences relatively

rar[e] for murderers under 18.” Jones, 141 S. Ct. 1318 (cleaned up). Because N.C.G.S.

§ 15A-1340.19B complies with Miller and neither sentence is presumptive, a

-17- STATE V. SIMS

sentencing court is not required to apply an additional filter to ensure rarity of the

sentence. Again, it is the sentencing court’s exercise of discretion in light of the

nature of the crime that makes a sentence of life without parole relatively rare, thus

safeguarding Eighth Amendment concerns.

We also note that, contrary to the assertions in the concurrence at the Court of

Appeals, the inquiry is not whether a defendant is permanently incorrigible or

irreparably corrupt; nor is it potential for redemption. See Sims, 260 N.C. App. at

683–84 (Stroud, J., concurring). The Supreme Court in Miller stated that life without

parole should be reserved for “the rare juvenile offender whose crime reflects

irreparable corruption.” Miller, 567 N.C. at 479-80 (cleaned up) (emphasis added).

Montgomery thereafter confirmed that Miller prohibited life without parole “for all

but the rarest of juvenile offenders, those whose crimes reflect permanent

incorrigibility.” Montgomery, 577 U.S. at 209 (emphasis added).

Just as the discretion invested in sentencing courts protects against what

could be considered overutilization of life without parole sentences, so too the Miller-

fix process puts the focus on the juvenile and his crimes by considering the mitigating

circumstances of youth. There is no separate requirement that a sentencing court

make a finding the murderer is permanently incorrigible or irreparably corrupt. We

know this because the Supreme Court explicitly stated such. See Jones, 141 S. Ct. at

1322 (“Miller and Montgomery …[squarely rejected the argument] that the sentencer

must make a finding of permanent incorrigibility….”). Thus, under Miller,

-18- STATE V. SIMS

Montgomery, and Jones, the Eighth Amendment does not require a sentencing court

to make a separate finding that a juvenile is permanently incorrigible or irreparably

corrupt to impose a sentence of life in prison without parole. See id. at 1320 (“Miller

did not say a word about requiring some kind of particular sentencing explanation

with an implicit finding of permanent incorrigibility, as Montgomery later

confirmed.”). See also United States v. Holt, 116 F.4th 599, 608 (6th Cir. 2024) (In

Jones, “the Court disavowed [defendant’s] view that . . . an express incorrigibility

finding before imposing a life sentence” is required.); United States v. Briones, 35

F.4th 1150, 1157 (9th Cir. 2021) (“permanent incorrigibility is not an eligibility

criterion for juvenile LWOP” under Jones); Crespin v. Ryan, 56 F.4th 796, 799 (9th

Cir. 2023) (Jones specifically assessed “whether a sentencer must actively find a

juvenile permanently incorrigible before imposing an LWOP sentence. The Supreme

Court clarified that no fact-finding requirement exists[.]” (cleaned up)); Helm, 112

F.4th at 687 (Miller “does not require that a state court’s weighing of the mitigating

factors associated with youth be conducted in accordance with any particular

substantive criteria of incorrigibility.”).

Rather, a sentencing court must simply consider youth and its attendant

circumstances in light of the defendant’s crime. Miller requires no more. Judges do

not engage in predictive analytics or employ redemption anticipation algorithms to

gauge whether a defendant will remain incorrigible or corrupt into his seventies; nor

should we. To the contrary, sentencing courts must merely apply the straightforward

-19- STATE V. SIMS

language of our Miller-fix statute and exercise discretion in handing down an

appropriate sentence to comply with the Eighth Amendment and, by extension,

Article I, § 27 of our state constitution. See Tirado, slip op. at 42.

Defendant, however, specifically challenges the sentencing court’s Miller

findings as to his (1) immaturity, (2) ability to appreciate the risks, (3) likelihood of

benefitting from rehabilitation in confinement, (4) prior record, and (5) familial and

peer pressure, and to the sentencing court’s weighing of those factors. Further,

defendant argues that the sentencing court disregarded mitigating evidence and

improperly considered otherwise mitigating evidence in favor of a sentence of life

without parole. We review each challenged finding in turn.

A sentencing court must consider the Miller-fix factors “in determining

whether, based upon all the circumstances of the offense and the particular

circumstances of the defendant, the defendant should be sentenced to life

imprisonment with parole instead of life imprisonment without parole.” N.C.G.S. §

15A-1340.19C(a). In addition, a sentencing court is required to enter an order which

“include[s] findings on the absence or presence of any mitigating factors and such

other findings as the court deems appropriate.” N.C.G.S. § 15A-1340.19C(a). But,

our appellate courts will not reverse a discretionary sentence “merely because the

sentencer could have said more about mitigating circumstances.” Jones, 141 S. Ct.

1321.

-20- STATE V. SIMS

The Court of Appeals has properly stated that “[o]rders weighing the Miller

factors and sentencing juveniles are reviewed for abuse of discretion.” State v.

Golphin, 292 N.C. App. 316, 322 (2024). See also State v. Antone, 240 N.C. App. 408,

410 (2015); State v. Hull, 236 N.C. App. 415, 421 (2014). Therefore, “[i]t is not the

role of an appellate court to substitute its judgment for that of the sentencing judge.”

State v. Lovette, 233 N.C. App. 706, 721 (2014).4

a. Immaturity

Defendant argues that the sentencing court disregarded mitigating evidence

presented by the forensic psychologist, Dr. Thomas Harbin, that defendant was no

more mature than an eight- or ten-year-old at the time of the murder. Additionally,

defendant contends that the sentencing court erred by weighing defendant’s

immaturity as an aggravating factor rather than a mitigating factor.

The sentencing court analyzed defendant’s immaturity under the Miller-fix

statute at the time of Ms. Kennedy’s murder and determined:

The Court does not find this factor to be a significant mitigating factor in this case based on all the evidence

4 Historically, we have stated that “on sentencing decisions appellate courts do not

substitute their judgment for that of the trial court.” State v. Ysaguire, 309 N.C. 780, 786, (1983). Thus, sentencing courts are afforded “wide latitude in determining the existence of aggravating and mitigating factors, for it . . . observes the demeanor of the witnesses and hears the testimony.” State v. Canty, 321 N.C. 520, 524 (1988); see also State v. Ahearn, 307 N.C. 584, 596 (1983). Similarly, we have concluded that the weight assigned to any particular mitigating circumstance is solely the province of the sentencer. See State v. Jaynes, 342 N.C. 249, 285 (1995). Although these cases arose under the Fair Sentencing Act, we think this deference to the sentencing court is particularly important in light of Miller’s insistence that discretionary sentencing and consideration of factors attendant with youth are of paramount importance. See Miller, 567 U.S. at 472 (emphasizing a juvenile defendant’s youth as a “distinctive attribute[ ].”).

-21- STATE V. SIMS

presented. The Court notes that any juvenile by definition is going to be immature, but that there was no evidence of any specific immaturity that mitigates the defendant’s conduct in this case.

Based upon Dr. Harbin’s testimony, the sentencing court found in

unchallenged finding of fact 6 that “defendant was a follower, and was easily

influenced”; that “defendant has a harder time paying attention than others and a

harder time restraining himself than others”; and that “defendant had poor social

skills, very poor judgment, [and] would be easily distracted.” These factors were the

basis for Dr. Harbin’s testimony regarding defendant’s immaturity. The sentencing

court obviously considered Dr. Harbin’s testimony regarding defendant’s immaturity

and made relevant findings.

That the sentencing court did not make a specific finding as to defendant’s

alleged maturity of an eight- or ten-year-old is immaterial, as the sentencing court

properly addressed evidence of immaturity, and it “need not make a finding as to

every fact which arises from the evidence.” See In re A.E.S.H., 380 N.C. at 693

(cleaned up). Moreover, simply because a sentencing court could have said more

about this mitigating circumstance is not grounds for a determination that the

sentence violated the Eighth Amendment. Jones, 141 S. Ct. at 1321.

Further, in unchallenged finding of fact 7, the sentencing court found that

“while this evidence was presented by the defendant to try to mitigate his actions . . .

th[e] evidence also demonstrate[d] that the defendant is dangerous.” (Emphasis

added). Defendant argues that this finding impermissibly construed his immaturity

-22- STATE V. SIMS

as an aggravating factor rather than a mitigating factor, in violation of the principle

that statutory mitigating factors, if found to exist, must be given mitigating value.

See State v. Jaynes, 342 N.C. 249, 285 (1995) (holding that if a sentencer determines

that “a statutory mitigating circumstance exists, [it] must give that circumstance

mitigating value.”). However, the use of the word “also” by the sentencing court in

this finding demonstrates that it acknowledged the existence of defendant’s

immaturity as a mitigating circumstance, but found that its weight, in light of the

other evidence presented, was of minimal significance, and defendant has not

demonstrated that the sentencing court abused its discretion. See Golphin, 292 N.C.

App. at 44-322 (“Orders weighing the Miller factors and sentencing juveniles are

reviewed for abuse of discretion.”); Lovette, 233 N.C. App. at 721 (“It is not the role of

an appellate court to substitute its judgment for that of the sentencing judge….”).

Because the weight afforded to a mitigating circumstance is within the sound

discretion of the sentencing court, defendant’s contention is without merit.

b. Ability to Appreciate the Risks

Defendant next argues that the sentencing court disregarded evidence

presented by Dr. Harbin that defendant was unable to appreciate the risks and

consequences of his conduct at the time of the murder. Further, defendant contends

that the sentencing court conflated a juvenile’s ability to differentiate between right

and wrong with the ability to appreciate the risks of certain conduct.

-23- STATE V. SIMS

The sentencing court made the following Miller finding as to the mitigating

nature of defendant’s ability to appreciate the risks of his conduct at the time of Ms.

Kennedy’s murder:

Dr. Harbin, the defendant’s psychologist, testified that in spite of the defendant’s diagnoses and mental health issues, the defendant would have known that the acts he and his co-defendants committed while they stole Ms. Kennedy’s car, kidnapped her, and ultimately murdered her were wrong.

The sentencing court’s uncontested findings of fact 5, 6, and 9 related to this

Miller factor are binding on appeal and demonstrate that the sentencing court

considered the material portions of Dr. Harbin’s testimony and other evidence

regarding defendant’s ability to appreciate the risks associated with his conduct. The

sentencing court discussed and considered that even though Dr. Harbin testified that

defendant had poor judgment, defendant also understood right from wrong at the

time of Ms. Kennedy’s murder, and defendant understood that kidnapping,

assaulting, and murdering Ms. Kennedy was “clearly wrong.” Defendant’s role in the

murder and his attempts to conceal or destroy evidence thereafter are also indicative

of defendant’s ability to understand and appreciate the risks associated with his

conduct.

As with defendant’s argument concerning immaturity, the sentencing court

was not required to make a finding as to every fact which arose from the evidence.

See In re A.E.S.H., 380 N.C. at 693. Simply because a sentencing court could have

said more about a mitigating circumstance is not grounds for a determination that

-24- STATE V. SIMS

the sentence violated the Eighth Amendment. Jones, 141 S. Ct. at 1321. Because

there is no “formulaic checklist” or “magic-words requirement,” id., the sentencing

court properly considered the material portions of Dr. Harbin’s testimony concerning

defendant’s ability to appreciate the risks of his conduct at the time of the murder.

Therefore, defendant’s argument is without merit.

Further, we find defendant’s argument that the sentencing court improperly

conflated defendant’s knowledge of right and wrong with his ability to appreciate the

risks unpersuasive. In Miller, the Supreme Court stated that the ability to appreciate

the consequences of conduct involves the “calculation of the risk[s] [the conduct]

pose[s]” by a defendant at the time of the crime. Miller, 567 U.S. at 478. This is not

intended to be a formulaic determination, but rather a common sense view of the

evidence in light of the defendant’s specific circumstances.

In addition to its finding that defendant could differentiate between right and

wrong, the sentencing court found that defendant engaged in a plan to assist his co-

defendant in evading a probation violation hearing. This included driving Ms.

Kennedy’s stolen car, throwing her in the trunk, lying to co-defendant Williams about

letting Ms. Kennedy go, cleaning Ms. Kennedy’s blood from the vehicle, providing Bell

the lighter to start the fire that killed Ms. Kennedy, and returning to the scene to

wipe down Ms. Kennedy’s vehicle in an attempt to avoid detection. See State v.

Roberts, 876 N.W.2d 863, 869 (Minn. 2016) (holding that the defendant “indicated an

awareness of the consequences of his behavior when,” among other things, he

-25- STATE V. SIMS

“dispos[ed] of evidence”); Cook v. State, 242 So.3d 865, 875 (Miss. Ct. App. 2017)

(“[Defendants’] efforts to cover their tracks suggested an awareness of the

consequences.”). Therefore, the sentencing court did not misapprehend the nature of

this mitigating circumstance, and we will not substitute our judgment for that of the

sentencing court. See Lovette, 233 N.C. App. at 721.

c. Likelihood that Defendant Would Benefit from Rehabilitation in Confinement

Defendant next asserts that the sentencing court erroneously weighed his

ability to be rehabilitated in favor of a sentence of life without parole. More

specifically, defendant argues that the sentencing court’s finding that though

“defendant has seemed to do somewhat better in prison,” the “rigid, structured

environment” of prison will serve him best, was improper.

At the resentencing hearing, defendant testified that over the course of his

thirteen years in prison, he had taken several character-education and vocational

courses, competed in sports competitions, worked several jobs, obtained his GED, and

had been moved down to medium custody. However, defendant also admitted that

he had received thirty-nine infractions while in prison for fighting, disobeying orders,

being in unauthorized locations, using profane language, possessing tobacco and

contraband, and tampering with locks. Further, defendant also confirmed that

during his first ten years of prison, he refused to obtain his GED despite pleas from

multiple case managers, and that he told a psychiatrist that he did not believe he

should be in prison. Additionally, Dr. Harbin confirmed on cross-examination that

-26- STATE V. SIMS

defendant’s psychological issues could make him “a pretty dangerous person,” but

that “being in a very structured environment would . . . tend to lessen the symptoms

of [his] psychological problems.”

In light of unchallenged finding of fact 2 set forth above, the sentencing court

made the following Miller finding as to the mitigating nature of defendant’s potential

for rehabilitation while in confinement:

The defendant’s prison records demonstrate that the defendant has been charged and found responsible for well over 20 infractions while in prison. He consistently refused many efforts to obtain substance abuse treatment. While the defendant has in fact obtained his GED which the Court finds is an important step towards rehabilitation, the Court notes that the defendant during the first ten years plus of his confinement often refused multiple case managers pleas to obtain his G.E.D. According to prison records submitted into evidence during the February 20, 2014 evidentiary hearing, the Court notes that during a 2009 meeting with a psychiatrist the defendant noted that he was depressed in part because he was in prison and should not be. The Court finds that throughout the defendant’s life he did not adjust well to whatever environment he was in. The Court finds that in recent years, the defendant has seemed to do somewhat better in prison, which includes being moved to medium custody. Most importantly to this Court, the evidence demonstrates that in prison, the defendant is in a rigid, structured environment, which best serves to help him with his mental health issues, and serves to protect the public from the defendant, who on multiple occasions in non-structured environments committed unlawful acts when in the company of others.

The sentencing court clearly considered the mitigating evidence of defendant’s

slight improvements and weighed that evidence against defendant’s continual bad

-27- STATE V. SIMS

behavior, as well as his own expert’s testimony that defendant would benefit from the

structured environment that prison provides. Because the weight afforded to a

mitigating circumstance is entirely for the sentencing court to determine, defendant’s

contention is without merit.

d. Prior Record

Defendant next argues that the sentencing court erred by considering two

incidents which did not constitute convictions on his criminal history. These two

prior incidents included (1) defendant being charged with an armed robbery offense

in Florida and (2) defendant being removed from a high school after being accused of

stealing from the boy’s locker room with two accomplices.

Again, defendant did not challenge finding of fact 4 related to his prior record.

It is therefore undisputed that defendant was charged with robbery in Florida and

that he was removed from Hobbton High School in 1998, at least in part because he

was accused of stealing, and the school determined the incident did not result from

any learning disability he may have had. The sentencing court further noted that

these two incidents were substantially similar to his actions related to the murder of

Ms. Kennedy because, in each incident, defendant was part of a group, was a

criminally culpable part of each group, and failed to acknowledge his wrongdoing.

Moreover, the sentencing court stated in a footnote that, in considering the

robbery, it was not specifically considering the charge or any punishment, but rather

-28- STATE V. SIMS

it focused on “defendant’s complete denial of any wrongdoing while involved in

criminal activity as part of a group.”

The Court then made its Miller finding as to defendant’s prior record:

The defendant’s formal criminal record as found on the defendant’s prior record level worksheet was for possession of drug paraphernalia. However, the Court notes that because defendant was 17 ½, he had only been an adult for criminal purposes in North Carolina courts for a short period of time. The Court considers the defendant’s Armed Robbery juvenile situation in Florida and the defendant’s removal from high school for stealing as probative evidence in this case, specifically because both occurrences occurred when the defendant was with others, and the defendant denied culpability in Ms. Kennedy’s murder and the other two incidents. The Court does not find this to be a compelling mitigating factor for the defendant.

Defendant argues that by considering the evidence of these two incidents, the

sentencing court went beyond the scope of the meaning of “prior record” under

N.C.G.S. § 15A-1340.19B(c)(5). However, as the Court of Appeals correctly observed,

“prior record” is not defined under N.C.G.S. § 15A-1340.19B. Sims, 260 N.C. App. at

677. Instead, defendant requests that this Court interpret “prior record” under the

statute at issue as it is defined under the Structured Sentencing Act. See N.C.G.S. §

15A-1340.14(a) (2023) (“The prior record level of a felony offender is determined by

calculating the sum of the points assigned to each of the offenders prior

convictions . . . .”).

Defendant’s preferred reading, however, ignores the obvious fact that it is the

rare juvenile who would have prior convictions under the Structured Sentencing Act

-29- STATE V. SIMS

given the presumption in favor of juvenile dispositions for delinquents. Moreover,

such a reading would lead to the illogical result of precluding consideration of any

delinquency adjudications under the Juvenile Code. See N.C.G.S. § 7B-2412 (2023)

(“An adjudication that a juvenile is delinquent . . . shall n[ot] be considered conviction

of any criminal offense . . . .”). This would defeat the purpose iterated in Miller that

a sentencing court should consider a juvenile’s “past criminal history.” Miller, 567

U.S. at 479. An increase or decrease in criminal conduct would certainly be relevant

to a sentencing court’s determination, and limiting “prior record” only to convictions

under the Structured Sentencing Act would not allow for the meaningful review of a

juvenile’s entire criminal history.

Moreover, the Miller-fix statute specifically allows a sentencing court to

consider any evidence “as to any matter that the court deems relevant to sentencing,

and any evidence which the court deems to have probative value may be received.”

N.C.G.S. § 15A-1340.19B(b). Thus, the intent of the legislature, in light of the

language in Miller, is to allow the sentencing court to obtain, to the extent possible,

a more complete picture of a defendant so that it can effectively exercise its broad

discretion in sentencing juvenile murderers. Absent specific direction from the

legislature that a consideration of a juvenile’s “prior record” under N.C.G.S. § 15A-

1340.19B only concerns convictions under the Structured Sentencing Act, we decline

to read such a limitation into the statute.

-30- STATE V. SIMS

Further, even if the consideration of a juvenile’s “prior record” was limited to

convictions, the sentencing court here did not abuse its discretion in weighing this

factor. The sentencing court specifically stated that it was not “consider[ing] the

charge itself or the subsequent punishment itself as evidence against the defendant,”

but rather, that it found both the armed robbery offense and the high school theft

incident probative of defendant’s tendency to be involved in group criminal conduct

and then subsequently deny responsibility. Moreover, in its finding as to defendant’s

prior record, it noted that “defendant’s formal criminal record . . . was for possession

of drug paraphernalia”—not any other crime—which demonstrates that the

sentencing court did not weigh the two prior incidents as substantive evidence of

crimes. Rather, the sentencing court found that, in light of all the evidence presented,

defendant had a tendency to be involved in group criminal activity. We find no abuse

of discretion, and as discussed, the weight afforded to a mitigating factor lies within

the sound discretion of the sentencing court.

e. Familial and Peer Pressure

Finally, defendant contends that the sentencing court misapprehended the

peer pressure mitigating factor. Specifically, defendant argues that the sentencing

court erred by discounting the peer pressure factor on the basis that defendant was

not “threatened or coerced,” as peer pressure is more properly determined by

“whether a deliberate choice made by the defendant was influenced by his peers.”

-31- STATE V. SIMS

At defendant’s trial and the resentencing hearing, evidence was presented that

defendant was admonished by multiple family members and mentors that he should

stay away from co-defendant Bell. Specifically, defendant’s mom, sister, and his

manager from Hardee’s, Ms. Vickie Kurch, testified that they warned defendant to

stay away from Bell, but that defendant nonetheless continued to associate with him.

Further, other evidence presented at defendant’s trial demonstrated that he took

initiative to be involved in the plan to steal Ms. Kennedy’s vehicle and ultimately kill

her. Defendant told Bell that he was “down for whatever,” he provided Bell with the

lighter to start the fire in the car, and he personally attempted to clean up evidence

of his involvement in the crime. Additionally, defendant admitted at the resentencing

hearing that he personally had made “wrong choices” on the day Ms. Kennedy was

murdered. On the other hand, the only evidence presented that defendant may have

been susceptible to peer pressure was Dr. Harbin’s testimony that defendant was “a

follower” and thus could have been easily influenced.

Again, defendant did not challenge relevant findings of fact 6, 8, and 9, and

those findings are binding on appeal.

In its analysis under N.C.G.S. § 15A-1340.19B, the sentencing court made the

following Miller finding as to the familial and peer pressure defendant experienced

at the time of Ms. Kennedy’s murder:

A. The Court finds that there was no familial pressure exerted on the defendant to commit this crime. In fact, the opposite is true. Sophia Strickland, Sims’ mother, testified both at the trial and at the February 20, 2014

-32- STATE V. SIMS

evidentiary hearing that she had warned Sims repeatedly to stay away from the co-defendant[s] in this case. Specifically, Ms. Strickland stated at the evidentiary hearing that if Sims continued to hang out with his co-defendants, something bad was going to happen. Further, Sims’ sister, Tashia Strickland, also told Sims that she did not like the co-defendants, that the co-defendants were not welcome at her residence, and that Sims should not hang out with them. Also, Vicki K[u]rch, Sims’ Hardee’s manager, who tried to help Sims when she could, sometimes gave Sims a free ride to work, bought Sims a coat, and fed Sims’ younger brother for free, warned Sims not to hang out with co- defendants, one of whom had worked for her and she knew well. The Court finds that the defendant refused to listen to his family members’ warnings to stay away from the co-defendants.

B. Peer Pressure. There was no evidence in this case that Sims was threatened or coerced to do any of the things he did during the kidnapping, assault, murder, and burning of Ms. Kennedy’s car. At trial, co-defendant Chad Williams stated that when Chris Bell first brought up the idea of stealing the car, Sims stated “I’m down for whatever.” The only evidence that may fit in this category is Dr. Harbin’s testimony that the defendant could be easily influenced. Nevertheless, the defendant made a choice to be with his co-defendants during Ms. Kennedy’s murder, and actively participated in it. The evidence demonstrated that the defendant was apparently only easily influenced by his friends, but not his family who consistently told him to avoid the co-defendants. This demonstrates that the defendant made choices as to whom he would listen.

Based upon the record here, there was substantial evidence presented that

defendant made deliberate decisions to be involved in this criminal activity. While

taking into account Dr. Harbin’s testimony that defendant was easily influenced, the

sentencing court assigned little weight to this evidence, finding that “defendant was

-33- STATE V. SIMS

apparently only easily influenced by his friends, but not his family who consistently

told him to avoid the co-defendants.”

Further, defendant’s argument that the sentencing court misapprehended the

meaning of “peer pressure” by discussing the lack of threats or coercion is

unpersuasive, as it fails to take the entirety of the sentencing court’s finding into

account. The sentencing court’s Miller finding discussed the evidence that was

presented in detail, noting the absence of any threats or coercion, but more

importantly, that defendant made individual and deliberate choices to participate in

the crimes. Thus, the sentencing court did not abuse its discretion.

C. Court of Appeals’ Application of the Proper Standards

Defendant argues that the Court of Appeals erred by applying an abuse of

discretion standard to the sentencing court’s resentencing order, rather than

engaging in a “meaningful analysis” of whether the sentencing court’s findings

supported the conclusion that defendant is irreparably corrupt. However, as

discussed herein, defendant’s argument is contrary to authority and is without merit.

A sentence of life without the possibility of parole for juveniles is allowed and

the standard of review to be applied by our appellate courts is an abuse of discretion.

Our sentencing courts stand in the best position to determine whether a specific

defendant should be sentenced to life without the possibility of parole. Miller

discusses the “rarity” of juvenile life without parole sentences, but it does not advise

against applying an abuse of discretion standard. See People v. Skinner, 502 Mich.

-34- STATE V. SIMS

89, 137 (2018) (“All crimes have a maximum possible penalty, and when trial judges

have discretion to impose a sentence, the imposition of the maximum possible penalty

for any crime is presumably ‘uncommon’ or ‘rare.’ ”). Defendant’s contention is

without merit.

III. Conclusion

“It is a great tragedy when a juvenile commits murder— most of all for the innocent victims. But also for the murderer, whose life has gone so wrong so early. And for society as well, which has lost one or more of its members to deliberate violence, and must harshly punish another.”

Miller, 567 U.S. at 501 (Roberts, C.J., dissenting). The Miller-fix sentencing scheme

satisfies federal and state constitutional concerns by requiring that sentencing courts

consider a defendant’s youth in mitigation and conferring discretion upon those

courts to impose a punishment other than life without parole. Because it is not the

role of the appellate courts to reweigh evidence on sentencing, we will generally defer

to the sentencing courts on review, and the decision of the Court of Appeals is

affirmed.

In addition, for reasons consistent with this Court’s decision in Bell,

defendant’s J.E.B. claim is procedurally barred, and we affirm defendant’s sentence

of life in prison without parole.

-35- Justice EARLS concurring in the result only.

I concur in the result only. As to the J.E.B. issue, I concur in the result only for

the reasons set out in my concurring in the result only opinion in State v. Bell, No.

86A02-2 (N.C. Mar. 21, 2025). See J.E.B. v. Alabama ex rel. T.B., 511 U.S. 127 (1994).

As to the Miller resentencing issue, I concur in the result only for the reasons set

forth in the Court of Appeals opinion below, State v. Sims, 260 N.C. App. 665 (2018).

See Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (2012).

I write separately to respond to two profound errors in the majority’s analysis

of Miller’s sentencing requirements. First, the majority signals a shift in the Miller

sentencing hearing inquiry away from the circumstances of the offender and his

offense in favor of his offense only. That shift is inconsistent with state statutes, our

precedent, and precedent of the United States Supreme Court. Second, the majority’s

opinion commits a perverse logical fallacy by engaging in the exact type of predictive

analytics it purports to reject, threatening to mislead sentencing judges as to what is

expected of them under our Constitutions.1

As to the first point, the majority distills the Miller sentencing inquiry to a

singular focus on the facts of the crime. It does this implicitly in how it structures its

opinion. It reiterates over ten paragraphs the sentencing court’s findings of fact on

the details of Sims’s atrocious acts. It then devotes two sentences to its observation

1 In State v. Borlase, No. 33A24 (N.C. Mar. 21, 2025) (Earls, J., dissenting), I address

the majority’s other errors related to its new standard of review and its break from Eighth Amendment jurisprudence and our precedent.

-36- STATE V. SIMS

Earls, J., concurring in the result only

that the sentencing court made the required findings and conclusions, before it

concludes that the court complied with the Eighth Amendment’s requirements. (This

is not because the trial court provided scarce reasoning. Quite the opposite. Its order

carefully explained what evidence was presented, how the hearing proceeded, what

evidence it thought was credible, and why the evidence was or was not mitigating,

and spent three pages analyzing N.C.G.S. § 15A-1340.19B’s requirements.) The

majority also shifts the focus explicitly. In its words, “[A] sentencing court must

simply consider youth and its attendant circumstances in light of the defendant’s

crime.”

This myopic focus on the facts of the crime violates Miller. That case instructed

that the Eighth Amendment provides substantive protections that make juvenile

sentences of life without parole rare in light of the totality of the circumstances of the

offense and the offender. We confirmed in State v. James, 371 N.C. 77 (2018), that

the statutory scheme that implements Miller’s mandate was facially constitutional

only because it was designed to have a sentencer analyze “all of the relevant facts and

circumstances in light of the substantive standard enunciated in Miller” to decide the

appropriate sentence “based upon all the circumstances of the offense and the

particular circumstances of the defendant.” Id. at 89 (first emphasis added). The

offense and the offender are the hearing’s subject. Analyzing both is how a sentencer

has discretion.

Miller is no substantive requirement at all, however, if the offender’s crime is

-37- STATE V. SIMS

all that matters. In North Carolina, by the time a juvenile is even eligible for life

without the possibility of parole, the juvenile must have been convicted of killing

another person intentionally and in the first degree. See Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S.

48, 82 (2010) (forbidding under the Eighth Amendment juvenile sentences of life

without parole for nonhomicide offenses); N.C.G.S. § 15A-1340.19B(a)(1) (2023)

(excluding juveniles convicted of first-degree murder under a felony murder theory

from life without the possibility of parole sentences). Every juvenile convicted of

intentionally killing another person has by definition committed a heinous crime. It

eliminates the exercise of discretion, then, to make the sentencing decision entirely

dependent on whether the crime was heinous. Thus the majority’s overt focus on the

nature of the crime “in light of” the defendant’s youth effectively revives the

mandatory sentencing approach that Miller rejected. And the majority oversteps its

appropriate role as a state’s highest court by effectively overturning that Supreme

Court precedent.2

Second, the majority asserts without a hint of irony that “[j]udges do not

engage in predictive analytics or employ redemption anticipation algorithms to gauge

whether a defendant will remain incorrigible or corrupt into his seventies; nor should

2 The majority’s reasoning is wrong to suggest that Jones v. Mississippi, 141 S. Ct.

1307 (2021), blessed this overt focus on the juvenile’s crimes. Rather Jones embraced Miller’s core holding and observed that “life-without-parole sentences [would be] ‘relatively rar[e]’ for murderers under 18.” 141 S. Ct. at 1318 (second alteration in original) (quoting Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460, 484 (2012)). Again, those eligible for this sentence are only those who committed murders while under the age of eighteen. It is among that pool—“murderers under 18”—for whom the sentence will be rare. See id.

-38- STATE V. SIMS

we.” But imposing on a juvenile a sentence of life without the possibility of parole is

exactly such an exercise in “predictive analytics.” In so doing, a sentencer predicts

that a teenage defendant, who may live far longer within a prison’s walls than they

ever lived without, will never change. It is a prediction that “in 25 years, in 35 years,

in 55 years—when the defendant may be in his seventies or eighties”—he will remain

as dangerous as he was when he was a teenager, so that even the possibility of parole

is futile and should be denied to him. Sims, 260 N.C. App. at 683 (Stroud, J.,

concurring in the result only). Science and common sense support that most people

are not permanently frozen with the characteristics they exhibited as a teenager. See

Miller, 567 U.S. at 471; Jones v. Mississippi, 141 S. Ct. 1307, 1340–41 (2021)

(Sotomayor, J., dissenting). But a sentence of life without the possibility of parole for

teenagers makes exactly the opposite prediction.

Following North Carolina’s statutorily mandated procedures, the trial court

made the necessary findings about Mr. Sims to support its conclusion that he is one

of the rare juveniles for whom a life without parole sentence is constitutional.

However, because I strongly disagree with the majority’s circular reasoning and its

departure from binding Supreme Court precedent, I concur in the result only.

Justice RIGGS joins in this concurring in the result only opinion.

-39-