State v. Wissink

Supreme Court of North Carolina

State v. Wissink

645 S.E.2d 761, 361 N.C. 418, 2007 N.C. LEXIS 591

CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina

DecidedJune 28, 2007

Docket484PA05

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 645 S.E.2d 761 (State v. Wissink) 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. Wissink, 645 S.E.2d 761, 361 N.C. 418, 2007 N.C. LEXIS 591 (N.C. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Although the Court of Appeals addressed several issues in its opinion, we allowed review solely for consideration of whether the trial court’s finding of defendant’s probationary status constituted error under Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296, 159 L. Ed. 2d 403 (2004), and whether defendant had knowingly and voluntarily stipulated to his probationary status. The decision of the Court of Appeals to remand for resentencing is reversed, and we remand this case to that court for reconsideration of these two issues in light of our decisions in State v. Hurt, 361 N.C. 325, 330, 643 S.E.2d 915, 918 (2007) (holding “a judge may not find an aggravating factor on the basis of a defendant’s admission unless that defendant personally or through counsel admits the necessary facts or admits that the aggravating factor is applicable”) and State v. Blackwell, 361 N.C. 41, 44, 49-51, 638 S.E.2d 452, 455, 458-59 (2006) (explaining that Blakely error is subject to harmless error review), cert. denied, -U.S. —, — L. Ed. 2d -, 75 U.S.L.W. 3609 (2007). The Court of Appeals opinion remains undisturbed in all other respects.

REVERSED IN PART AND REMANDED.

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

PER CURIAM.

Although the Court of Appeals addressed several issues in its opinion, we allowed review solely for consideration of whether the trial court’s finding of defendant’s probationary status constituted error under Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296, 159 L. Ed. 2d 403 (2004), and whether defendant had knowingly and voluntarily stipulated to his probationary status. The decision of the Court of Appeals to remand for resentencing is reversed, and we remand this case to that court for reconsideration of these two issues in light of our decisions in State v. Hurt, 361 N.C. 325, 330, 643 S.E.2d 915, 918 (2007) (holding “a judge may not find an aggravating factor on the basis of a defendant’s admission unless that defendant personally or through counsel admits the necessary facts or admits that the aggravating factor is applicable”) and State v. Blackwell, 361 N.C. 41, 44, 49-51, 638 S.E.2d 452, 455, 458-59 (2006) (explaining that Blakely error is subject to harmless error review), cert. denied, -U.S. —, — L. Ed. 2d -, 75 U.S.L.W. 3609 (2007). The Court of Appeals opinion remains undisturbed in all other respects.

REVERSED IN PART AND REMANDED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

645 S.E.2d 761, 361 N.C. 418, 2007 N.C. LEXIS 591, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-wissink-nc-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack