State v. Banks, 367 N.C. 652

In 2007 Edy Charles Banks was convicted of statutory rape (15-year-old victim), second-degree rape (victim mentally disabled), and taking indecent liberties based on a single act of vaginal intercourse; consolidated sentences resulted in consecutive terms.
Banks later filed a motion for appropriate relief (MAR) arguing trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object on double jeopardy grounds to being punished for both statutory rape and second-degree rape arising from the same act.
The superior court denied the MAR applying the Blockburger test and concluding the two statutes require different elements and allow separate punishments.
The Court of Appeals reversed, relying on State v. Ridgeway, holding the General Assembly did not intend cumulative punishment for statutory rape and a sexual-offense charge based on a single act.
The State appealed to the North Carolina Supreme Court, which granted review to resolve whether double jeopardy barred separate punishments and whether Banks was prejudiced by counsel’s failure to raise the argument.
The Supreme Court held the statutes have distinct elements (age/age-difference for statutory rape; mental disability/incapacity for second-degree rape), indicating legislative intent to permit separate punishments; therefore Banks suffered no prejudice and the Court of Appeals decision was reversed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether punishment for both statutory rape and second-degree rape based on one act violates double jeopardy	Banks: dual convictions/punishments violate double jeopardy because they arise from a single act	State: statutes have different elements; legislature intended separate punishments	Held: No double jeopardy violation; Blockburger shows distinct elements and legislative intent allows cumulative punishment
Whether trial counsel’s failure to raise a double jeopardy objection constituted ineffective assistance of counsel	Banks: counsel deficient for not objecting, causing prejudice	State: any double jeopardy objection would have failed, so no prejudice	Held: No prejudice; IAC fails on prejudice prong
Applicability of Ridgeway precedent to statutory rape vs second-degree rape issue	Banks/Ct. of Appeals: Ridgeway supports non-cumulative punishment when charges overlap	State: Ridgeway concerned different statutory scheme (first-degree rape and statutory sexual offense) and is inapplicable	Held: Ridgeway inapplicable to this case
Proper test for assessing identity of offenses	Banks: (implicit) protections should bar multiple punishments here	State: use Blockburger to compare statutory elements	Held: Blockburger governs; each statute requires proof of an element the other does not

Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299 (defines the test for determining whether two offenses are the same for double jeopardy)
Albernaz v. United States, 450 U.S. 333 (explains legislative intent can allow multiple punishments for distinct statutory evils)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (establishes ineffective assistance of counsel standard)
State v. Gardner, 315 N.C. 444 (addresses legislative intent and double jeopardy in multiple punishment contexts)
State v. Etheridge, 319 N.C. 34 (discusses identity-of-offense analysis under Blockburger)
State v. Swann, 322 N.C. 666 (holding that distinct elements demonstrate legislative intent to permit punishment for both offenses)
State v. Ridgeway, 185 N.C. App. 423 (Court of Appeals decision relied on by Banks; found inapplicable here)
State v. Anthony, 351 N.C. 611 (explains statutory rape’s age/difference-in-age elements and purpose)