State v. Khan, 366 N.C. 448

Defendant Khan was charged in two indictments: 08 CRS 85094 (murder and conspiracy to murder) and 10 CRS 652 (attempted murder and conspiracy to commit first‑degree murder).
The plea agreement consolidated the 2008 and 2010 indictments for judgment; the 2008 first‑degree murder was reduced to second‑degree murder and consolidated with that indictment.
The Transcript of Plea shows stipulations including that defendant admitted the existence of an aggravating factor taking advantage of a position of trust, with notice and supporting facts to the aggravating factors noted.
At sentencing, the judge imposed aggravated sentences on both indictments, finding the aggravating factor beyond a reasonable doubt and weighing against mitigating factors.
The Court of Appeals vacated the 2010 indictment sentence and remanded, concluding ambiguity in the plea transcript limited the aggravation to the 2008 indictment.
The North Carolina Supreme Court held the Transcript of Plea was not ambiguous and affirmed the aggravation as to both indictments, remanding to reinstate the original sentence for the 2010 indictment.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was the Transcript of Plea ambiguous about the scope of the aggravating factor?	Khan argued ambiguity to limit aggravation to 2008 indictment.	Khan contended ambiguity favored limiting aggravation to 2008 indictment.	Transcript not ambiguous; applies to both indictments.
Did the plea and sentencing proceedings establish aggravation for both indictments?	State contends both indictments were properly aggravated under stipulation and evidence.	Khan contends aggravation may have applied only to 2008 indictment.	Aggravation supported for both indictments; sentences upheld.
Was there sufficient evidence to support the 2010 indictment’s aggravation based on trust position?	Evidence showed Khan planned and participated with victim as a close friend, exploiting trust.	Argues insufficient nexus between trust and 2010 events.	Evidence sufficient to establish taking advantage of a position of trust for 2010 indictment.
Did the trial court follow statutorily mandated plea procedures for aggravated sentencing?	Procedures were satisfied as the court explained terms and the defendant acknowledged aggravation.	Procedural deficiencies could nullify the aggravated sentence.	Procedures satisfied under N.C.G.S. § 15A-1022.1.

River Birch Assocs. v. City of Raleigh, 326 N.C. 100 (1990) (ambiguous contracts and questions of law reviewed de novo)
State v. Agnew, 361 N.C. 333 (2007) (guilty plea informed and voluntary; transparency of proceedings)
In re Greens of Pine Glen Ltd. P’ship, 356 N.C. 642 (2003) (questions of law in plea and sentencing reviewed de novo)
State v. Blackwell, 135 N.C. App. 729 (1999) (ambiguities in plea proceedings construed against the State)
State v. Blackwell, 353 N.C. 259 (2000) (per curiam remand accompanying ambiguity discussions)