Case Law State v. Sims

State v. Sims

Document Cited Authorities (14) Cited in (16) Related

Attorney General Joshua H. Stein, by Assistant Attorney General Kimberly N. Callahan, Raleigh, for the State.

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

BRYANT, Judge.

Where the trial court complied with the statutory requirements in determining that life imprisonment without parole was warranted for defendant, we hold the sentence is not in violation of the Eighth Amendment. Where the trial court properly made ultimate findings of fact on each of the Miller factors as set forth in section 15A-1340.19B(c), we hold that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in weighing those factors and concluding that life imprisonment without parole was appropriate in defendant's case.

In the instant case, the trial court incorporated the facts as articulated by this Court in State v. Sims , 161 N.C. App. 183, 184–189, 588 S.E.2d 55, 57–60 (2003), into its order from which defendant appeals.1 The facts are as follows:

[D]efendant [Antwaun Sims, who was seventeen at the time of the offense,] was with Chad Williams ... and Chris Bell ... in Newton Grove, North Carolina on 3 January 2000, when Bell said that the group needed to rob someone to get a car so Bell could leave the state to avoid a probation violation hearing. Defendant agreed to assist Bell. Defendant, Bell, and Williams observed Elleze Kennedy (Ms. Kennedy), an eighty-nine-year old woman, leaving the Hardee's restaurant ... around 7:00 p.m. Ms. Kennedy got into her Cadillac and drove to her home a few blocks away. Defendant, Bell, and Williams ran after Ms. Kennedy's car ... until they reached [her] home. Bell approached Ms. Kennedy in her driveway with a BB pistol and demanded Ms. Kennedy's keys. Ms. Kennedy began yelling and Bell hit her in the face with the pistol, knocking her to the ground. Bell told defendant and Williams to help him find the keys to Ms. Kennedy's Cadillac. After rifling through Ms. Kennedy's pockets, Williams found the keys on the carport and handed them to defendant who agreed to drive.
Bell told defendant and Williams to move Ms. Kennedy to the back seat of the Cadillac.... Ms. Kennedy kept asking Bell where he was taking her. Bell responded by telling her to shut up and striking her in the face several times with the pistol....
After driving, ... defendant, Bell, and Williams put Ms. Kennedy, who was unconscious at the time, in the trunk of the Cadillac....
....
[Later], Williams told defendant and Bell that he was not going to travel in a stolen car to Florida with an abducted woman in the trunk....
....
Williams asked if they could let her go, but Bell replied, "Man, I ain't trying to leave no witnesses. This lady done seen my face. I ain't trying to leave no witnesses." Bell asked defendant for a lighter to burn Bell's blood-covered jacket. Defendant gave Bell his lighter and Bell set the jacket on fire and threw it into the Cadillac. Bell stayed to watch the fire, but defendant and Williams walked ... to defendant's brother's house to watch television.... The next morning Bell told defendant to go back to the car and confirm that Ms. Kennedy was dead, and that if she was not, defendant should finish burning the Cadillac. Defendant returned and told Bell and Williams that Ms. Kennedy was dead and that all of the windows in the Cadillac were smoked....
....
Ms. Kennedy's Cadillac was found by law enforcement the morning after her abduction. Investigators discovered Ms. Kennedy's body in the trunk. They made castings of footprints found in the area of the abandoned Cadillac. The castings were later compared to, and matched, shoes taken from defendant.... Investigators recovered a red cloth from the backseat floorboard, which was later identified as the one defendant had used to wipe down the backseat of the Cadillac. Tests of the cloth showed traces of defendant's semen and Ms. Kennedy's blood. Police found two hairs in the backseat area of the Cadillac, one of which was later determined to be defendant's and the other Bell's. Police also matched latent fingerprints found on the Cadillac with prints taken from defendant and Bell.
....
Forensic pathologist Dr. Falpy Carl Barr (Dr. Barr) testified that he conducted Ms. Kennedy's autopsy on 5 January 2000.... Dr. Barr testified that Ms. Kennedy was struck multiple times with a weapon, leaving marks consistent with a pellet gun.... Dr. Barr testified that because of the extent of the soot in her trachea and lungs he believed that she was alive and breathing at the time the fire took place in the vehicle; however, because of Ms. Kennedy's elevated carbon monoxide level, Dr. Barr came to the conclusion that Ms. Kennedy died as a result of carbon monoxide poisoning from a fire in the Cadillac.

Id.

Defendant was arrested and later indicted for first-degree murder, assault with a deadly weapon inflicting serious injury, first-degree kidnapping, and burning personal property. On 14 August 2001, defendant was tried capitally in the Criminal Session of Onslow County Superior Court, the Honorable Jay Hockenbury, Judge presiding.2 Defendant was convicted of first-degree murder, first-degree kidnapping, and burning of personal property. At his sentencing hearing, the jury unanimously recommended that defendant be sentenced to life imprisonment without parole, as opposed to death, and the trial court entered judgment. Defendant appealed to this Court, which found no error in defendant's conviction.

On 4 April 2013, defendant filed a motion for appropriate relief requesting a new sentencing hearing in light of the United States Supreme Court's decision in Miller v. Alabama , 567 U.S. 460, 132 S.Ct. 2455, 183 L.Ed.2d 407 (2012), which held that mandatory life without parole for juvenile offenders violates the Eighth Amendment's prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment. By order entered 2 July 2013, the trial court granted defendant's motion for appropriate relief and ordered a rehearing pursuant to Miller as well as our North Carolina General Assembly's enactment of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-1340.19B, 2012 N.C. Sess. Laws 2012-148, § 1, eff. July 12, 2012 (stating that a defendant who is less than eighteen years of age who is convicted of first-degree murder pursuant to premeditation and deliberation shall have a hearing to determine whether the defendant should be sentenced to life imprisonment without parole or life imprisonment with parole).

On 20 February 2014, the Honorable Jack Jenkins, Special Superior Court Judge, conducted a hearing and ordered that "defendant's sentence is to remain life without parole." Defendant appealed. On 28 September 2016, this Court issued a writ of certiorari for the purpose of reviewing the resentencing order.

On appeal, defendant contends the trial court (I) violated his Eighth Amendment constitutional protection against cruel and unusual punishment by imposing a sentence of life without parole; and (II) erred by imposing a sentence of life without parole because the trial court failed to make findings on the presence or absence of Miller factors and the findings it did make do not support the conclusion that the sentence was warranted.

I

Defendant first argues the trial court violated his constitutional protections against cruel and unusual punishment by imposing a sentence of life without parole. We disagree.

"The standard of review for alleged violations of constitutional rights is de novo ." State v. Graham , 200 N.C. App. 204, 214, 683 S.E.2d 437, 444 (2009). The prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment forbids entering sentences "that are grossly disproportionate to the crime." State v. Thomsen , 242 N.C. App. 475, 487, 776 S.E.2d 41, 49 (2015), aff'd, 369 N.C. 22, 789 S.E.2d 639 (2016) (quoting Harmelin v. Michigan , 501 U.S. 957, 959, 111 S.Ct. 2680, 115 L.Ed.2d 836 (1991) ). The jurisprudence of the Eighth Amendment as it applies to juveniles recognizes that juvenile offenders are categorically distinguishable from adult offenders because of their "diminished culpability and greater prospects for reform." Miller , 567 U.S. at 471, 132 S.Ct. at 2464, 183 L.Ed.2d at 418. Nevertheless, courts continue to balance their interests in enforcing suitable punishments for juveniles proportionate to the crime while also maintaining fairness to juvenile offenders.

Miller v. Alabama "drew a line between children whose crimes reflect[ed] transient immaturity and those rare children whose crimes reflect[ed] irreparable corruption." Montgomery v. Louisiana , 577 U.S. ––––, ––––, 136 S.Ct. 718, 734, 193 L.Ed.2d 599, 620 (2016), (as revised Jan. 27, 2016). The United States Supreme Court ruled that imposing a mandatory life sentence without the possibility of parole for juvenile offenders violates the Eighth Amendment and "a judge or jury must have the opportunity to consider mitigating circumstances." Miller , 567 U.S. at 489, 132 S.Ct. at 2475, 183 L.Ed.2d at 430 ; also see id. at 476, 132 S.Ct. at 2467, 183 L.Ed.2d at 422 ("Such mandatory penalties, by their nature, preclude a sentencer from taking account of an offender's age and the wealth of characteristics and circumstances attendant to it.")

In response to Miller (but prior to the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Montgomery in 2016), our General Assembly enacted N.C. Gen. Stat. §§ 15A-1476 et seq. —now codified as 15A-1340.19 et seq. Section 15A-1340.19B(a)(1) provides that if a defendant is convicted of first-degree murder solely on the basis of the felony murder rule, his sentence shall be life imprisonment with parole. N.C.G.S. § 15A-1340.19B(a)(1) (2017). If a defendant is not sentenced pursuant to subsection (a)(1), "the court shall conduct a hearing to determine whether the defendant should be sentenced to life imprisonment without parole, as set forth in G.S. 14-17, or a lesser sentence...

5 cases
Document | North Carolina Court of Appeals – 2019
State v. Ames
"...subject to punishments including life without the possibility of parole "is reviewed for an abuse of discretion." State v. Sims , 260 N.C. 665, 671, 818 S.E.2d 401, 406 (2018) (citation omitted). Questions and conclusions of law, however, are reviewable de novo . Williams at 632, 669 S.E.2d..."
Document | North Carolina Court of Appeals – 2021
State v. Tirado
"...mitigating factors to determine the appropriate length of the sentence is reviewed for an abuse of discretion." State v. Sims , 260 N.C. App. 665, 671, 818 S.E.2d 401, 406 (2018) (citation omitted). For juveniles convicted of premeditated and deliberate first-degree murder, "the court shall..."
Document | North Carolina Court of Appeals – 2018
In re A.P.
"... ... § 1902 (2012). In relevant part ICWA states:In any involuntary proceeding in a State court, where the court knows or has reason to know that an Indian child is involved, the party seeking the foster care placement of, or termination ... "
Document | North Carolina Court of Appeals – 2024
State v. Borlase
"...incorrigible or corrupt, just as he was as a teenager, so that even then parole is not appropriate." State v. Sims, 260 N.C. App. 665, 683, 818 S.E.2d 401 (2018) (Stroud, J., concurring); see also State v. James, 371 N.C. 77, 96–97, 813 S.E.2d 195 (2018) ("Miller and its progeny indicate th..."
Document | North Carolina Court of Appeals – 2021
State v. Douglas
"...mitigating factors to determine the appropriate length of the sentence is reviewed for an abuse of discretion." State v. Sims , 260 N.C. App. 665, 671, 818 S.E.2d 401, 406 (2018) (citation omitted). ¶ 16 For juveniles convicted of premeditated and deliberate first-degree murder, "the court ..."

Try vLex and Vincent AI for free

Start a free trial
2 books and journal articles
Document | Vol. 131 Núm. 6, April 2022 – 2022
Youth Always Matters: Replacing Eighth Amendment Pseudoscience with an Age-Based Ban on Juvenile Life Without Parole.
"...note 109, at 11-16 (reviewing each of the Miller factors prior to imposing a sentence), and Record on Appeal at 150-53, State v. Sims, 818 S.E. 2d 401 (N.C. Ct. App. 2018) (No. COA 17-45) [hereinafter Corrected Record Excerpts, Sims] (citing each of the factors identified in the North Carol..."
Document | Vol. 110 Núm. 2, March 2020 – 2020
JUVENILE LIFE WITHOUT PAROLE IN NORTH CAROLINA.
"...See, e.g., James, 813 S.E.2d at 195 (remanding for further resentencing proceedings). For another case in process, see State v. Sims, 818 S.E.2d 401 (N.C. Ct. App. 2018), cert, granted, 820 S.E.2d 809 (N.C. 2018). The North Carolina Court of Appeals recently rejected a challenge to a pre-Mi..."

Try vLex and Vincent AI for free

Start a free trial

Experience vLex's unparalleled legal AI

Access millions of documents and let Vincent AI power your research, drafting, and document analysis — all in one platform.

Start a free trial

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
2 books and journal articles
Document | Vol. 131 Núm. 6, April 2022 – 2022
Youth Always Matters: Replacing Eighth Amendment Pseudoscience with an Age-Based Ban on Juvenile Life Without Parole.
"...note 109, at 11-16 (reviewing each of the Miller factors prior to imposing a sentence), and Record on Appeal at 150-53, State v. Sims, 818 S.E. 2d 401 (N.C. Ct. App. 2018) (No. COA 17-45) [hereinafter Corrected Record Excerpts, Sims] (citing each of the factors identified in the North Carol..."
Document | Vol. 110 Núm. 2, March 2020 – 2020
JUVENILE LIFE WITHOUT PAROLE IN NORTH CAROLINA.
"...See, e.g., James, 813 S.E.2d at 195 (remanding for further resentencing proceedings). For another case in process, see State v. Sims, 818 S.E.2d 401 (N.C. Ct. App. 2018), cert, granted, 820 S.E.2d 809 (N.C. 2018). The North Carolina Court of Appeals recently rejected a challenge to a pre-Mi..."

Try vLex and Vincent AI for free

Start a free trial

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
5 cases
Document | North Carolina Court of Appeals – 2019
State v. Ames
"...subject to punishments including life without the possibility of parole "is reviewed for an abuse of discretion." State v. Sims , 260 N.C. 665, 671, 818 S.E.2d 401, 406 (2018) (citation omitted). Questions and conclusions of law, however, are reviewable de novo . Williams at 632, 669 S.E.2d..."
Document | North Carolina Court of Appeals – 2021
State v. Tirado
"...mitigating factors to determine the appropriate length of the sentence is reviewed for an abuse of discretion." State v. Sims , 260 N.C. App. 665, 671, 818 S.E.2d 401, 406 (2018) (citation omitted). For juveniles convicted of premeditated and deliberate first-degree murder, "the court shall..."
Document | North Carolina Court of Appeals – 2018
In re A.P.
"... ... § 1902 (2012). In relevant part ICWA states:In any involuntary proceeding in a State court, where the court knows or has reason to know that an Indian child is involved, the party seeking the foster care placement of, or termination ... "
Document | North Carolina Court of Appeals – 2024
State v. Borlase
"...incorrigible or corrupt, just as he was as a teenager, so that even then parole is not appropriate." State v. Sims, 260 N.C. App. 665, 683, 818 S.E.2d 401 (2018) (Stroud, J., concurring); see also State v. James, 371 N.C. 77, 96–97, 813 S.E.2d 195 (2018) ("Miller and its progeny indicate th..."
Document | North Carolina Court of Appeals – 2021
State v. Douglas
"...mitigating factors to determine the appropriate length of the sentence is reviewed for an abuse of discretion." State v. Sims , 260 N.C. App. 665, 671, 818 S.E.2d 401, 406 (2018) (citation omitted). ¶ 16 For juveniles convicted of premeditated and deliberate first-degree murder, "the court ..."

Try vLex and Vincent AI for free

Start a free trial

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex