North Carolina Criminal Felony Serious Injury Murder Driving Double Jeopardy Lawyers Attorneys
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. JAMES MICHAEL DAVIS
SUPREME COURT OF NORTH CAROLINA
Ray family, Warren, his wife Vicky, and their daughter Melissa, approached the intersection of Highway 321 and Robinson Clemmer Road slightly north of the border. The Ray family traveled in Melissa's 1999 Chevrolet S-10 extended cab pickup truck. Defendant drove his 1987 Ford F-350 truck northbound on Highway 321 in South Carolina toward the North Carolina border. About three-quarters of a mile south of the state border, a South Carolina deputy sheriff was engaged in a traffic stop when he observed defendant's truck veer off the road, strike aroad sign, and continue traveling northbound. A witness traveling southbound heard a loud "boom" and then saw a road sign flying through the air as defendant's truck wove from side to side. While the family waited to turn left onto Highway 321 to travel southbound, Melissa saw defendant's truck veer off the road onto the grass, heading directly toward their vehicle. Defendant's F-350 truck forcefully collided with the Rays' smaller truck. The Rays' truck was "knocked straight up" and it flipped. Emergency medical personnel pronounced Warren and Vicky Ray dead at the scene of the accident. At the scene of the accident, defendant denied that he had consumed any alcohol. At the hospital, however, a North Carolina state trooper administered an Alkasensor test that indicated defendant had alcohol in his system. Defendant was indicted for two counts each of second-degree murder and felony death by vehicle for the deaths of Warren and Vicky Ray. Defendant was indicted for one count each of ADWISI and felony serious injury by vehicle for the injuries inflicted on Melissa Ray. Defendant was also indicted for one count each of reckless endangerment and driving while impaired. A jury convicted defendant on all charges. Following the decision by the Court of Appeals, defendant filed with this Court a notice of appeal based upon a constitutional question and a petition for discretionary review. This Court dismissed defendant's notice of appeal, but allowed his petition for discretionary review to consider whether section 20-141.4 authorizes defendant's sentences for felony death by vehicle and felony serious injury by vehicle.
ISSUES:
Whether defendant preserved his arguments for appellate review.
Do sentences for second-degree murder and ADWISI punish the same conduct as defendant's sentences for felony death by vehicle and felony serious injury by vehicle.
DISCUSSION:
Defendant claimed that N.C.G.S. 20-141.4(b) did not authorize his sentences for felony death by vehicle and felony serious injury by vehicle because thesecond-degree murderand ADWISI judgments provide greater punishment for the same conduct. Further, defendant claimed that felony death by vehicle is a lesser included offense of second-degree murder and that felony serious injury by vehicle is a lesser included offense of ADWISI. Thus, defendant also argued the trial court violated double jeopardy by failing to arrest the felony death by vehicle and felony serious injury by vehicle judgments. The Court of Appeals did not address the merits of defendant's arguments, holding instead that defendant did not preserve his objection "to a purported double jeopardy violation" because he did not object at trial. However, defendant also makes the distinct argument that section 20-141.4(b) did not authorize the trial court to impose punishment for felony death by vehicle and felony serious injury because the second-degree murder and ADWISI judgments provide greater punishment for the same conduct. It is well established that "when a trial court acts contrary to a statutory mandate and a defendant is prejudiced thereby, theright to appeal the court's action is preserved, notwithstanding defendant's failure to object at trial."
Section 20-141.4(b), entitled "Punishments," classifies the enumerated offenses "nless the conduct is covered by some other provision of law providing greater punishment." Thus, according to the plain language of the statute, the classifications and corresponding ranges of punishment authorized in subsection (b) apply only when the conduct is not punished by a higher class offense. In turn, when a trial court imposes punishment for a greater offense covering the same conduct, it is not authorized to impose punishment for the offenses enumerated in subsection (b). The General Assembly enacted an alternative in subsection (b), whereby a defendant may be sentenced for the enumerated offenses in the absence of applicable greater offenses, but not for both.
In this case, defendant points out that second-degree murder is a Class B2 felony,seeN.C.G.S. 14-17, and ADWISI is a Class E felony, 14-32(b) (2009). Section 20-141.4(b) specifies that felony death by vehicle is a Class E felony and felony serious injury by vehicle is a Class F felony "nless the conduct is covered under some other provision of law providing greater punishment." The judgments for second-degree murder and felony death by vehicle punish the same conduct, as do the felony serious injury by vehicle and ADWISI judgments. Because second-degree murder and ADWISI provide greater punishment for the same conduct, section 20-141.4(b) does not authorize the trial court to impose sentences for felony death by vehicle and felony serious injury by vehicle. In accord with the plain language of section 20-141.4(b), the Court held that the General Assembly did not authorize punishment for the enumerated offenses when punishment is imposed for higher class offenses that apply to the same conduct. Thus, the trial court in this case was not authorized to sentence defendant for felony death by vehicle and felony serious injury by vehicle.
JUDGMENT:
The trial court was not authorized to impose punishment forfelony death by vehicle and felony serious injury by vehicle because second-degree murder and ADWISI impose greater punishment for the same conduct. Therefore, the felony death by vehicle and felony serious injury by vehicle judgment was vacated and the conviction for driving while impaired was reinstated. Case was remanded to the Court of Appeals for further remand to Superior Court, Gaston County, for resentencing consistent with the proceedings.
Disclaimer:
These summaries are provided by the SRIS Law Group. They represent the firm's unofficial views of the Justices' opinions. The original opinions should be consulted for their authoritative content
North Carolina Criminal Felony Serious Injury Murder Driving Double Jeopardy Lawyers Attorneys
By: Atchuthan Sriskandarajah Common Causes of Brain Injury Preventing Injury in the Garden WHY IT IS GOOD TO GET AUTO LOANS ONLINE Women's Self-Esteem For Stress Reduction, Balance, and Autonomy consumerinjurylawyers : Accutane Lawyers: Accutane Lawsuits Auto Parts Auto parts manufacturers - Market visibility generates business Quick Guide to Surviving a Florida Domestic Violence Injunction Auto Mass Traffic Review & Bonus Auto Mass Traffic REVIEW A Product by Mo Latif Auto Mass Traffic Review Make Up to $10,000 Monthly Using A Revolutionary 3-Step System Information about Auto Mass Traffic Bonus What Auto Mass Traffic Really Offers You, Find It In My Review