State v. Soles

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

State v. Soles

369 S.E.2d 89, 90 N.C. App. 606, 1988 N.C. App. LEXIS 639

CourtCourt of Appeals of North Carolina

DecidedJune 21, 1988

DocketNo. 8713SC1164

StatusPublished

This text of 369 S.E.2d 89 (State v. Soles) 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. Soles, 369 S.E.2d 89, 90 N.C. App. 606, 1988 N.C. App. LEXIS 639 (N.C. Ct. App. 1988).

Pincite

Opinion

ARNOLD, Judge.

The trial court erred in sentencing defendant by considering as an aggravating factor a prior conviction for communicating threats where prayer for judgment was continued. When an accused is convicted with prayer for judgment continued, no judgment is entered. State v. Southern, 71 N.C. App. 563, 322 S.E. 2d 617 (1984), aff’d per curiam, 314 N.C. 110, 331 S.E. 2d 688 (1985). A conviction with prayer for judgment continued cannot support a finding of prior conviction as an aggravating factor. Id.

In the case sub judice, the trial court erred in finding that defendant was twice convicted of communicating threats since one of those convictions resulted in the direction of a prayer for judgment continued. Although the weight given to any particular aggravating factor is within the discretion of the trial judge, a case must be remanded for a new sentencing hearing if the trial judge errs in finding an aggravating factor and imposes a sentence beyond the presumptive term. State v. Aheam, 307 N.C. 584, 300 S.E. 2d 689 (1983). Accordingly, defendant is entitled to a new sentencing hearing.

Remanded for resentencing.

Judges Orr and Greene concur.

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

ARNOLD, Judge.

The trial court erred in sentencing defendant by considering as an aggravating factor a prior conviction for communicating threats where prayer for judgment was continued. When an accused is convicted with prayer for judgment continued, no judgment is entered. State v. Southern, 71 N.C. App. 563, 322 S.E. 2d 617 (1984), aff’d per curiam, 314 N.C. 110, 331 S.E. 2d 688 (1985). A conviction with prayer for judgment continued cannot support a finding of prior conviction as an aggravating factor. Id.

In the case sub judice, the trial court erred in finding that defendant was twice convicted of communicating threats since one of those convictions resulted in the direction of a prayer for judgment continued. Although the weight given to any particular aggravating factor is within the discretion of the trial judge, a case must be remanded for a new sentencing hearing if the trial judge errs in finding an aggravating factor and imposes a sentence beyond the presumptive term. State v. Aheam, 307 N.C. 584, 300 S.E. 2d 689 (1983). Accordingly, defendant is entitled to a new sentencing hearing.

Remanded for resentencing.

Judges Orr and Greene concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

369 S.E.2d 89, 90 N.C. App. 606, 1988 N.C. App. LEXIS 639, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-soles-ncctapp-1988.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack