State v. Lovette, 225 N.C. App. 456

Defendant was convicted of Murder, kidnapping, felonious larceny, and robbery with a firearm arising from Eve Carson's March 2008 kidnapping and murder.
Carson disappeared from her UNC Chapel Hill home; her body was found with multiple gunshot wounds the next day.
DNA from the car and shoe impressions linked Defendant to the crime scene; a handgun and shotgun were recovered, matching the charges.
Defendant did not present evidence; the jury found him guilty and he received life without parole for first-degree murder, plus concurrent terms.
Defendant filed a MAR seeking resentencing under Miller v. Alabama; the Act then required resentencing procedures for juveniles under age 18.
Court vacated the murder sentence and remanded for resentencing under the Act; no error in the trial itself.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Robbery with a dangerous weapon indictment sufficiency	Indictment naming property from presence suffices.	Indictment failed to name a person in charge/presence of property.	Indictment sufficiently named the person in charge or present; jurisdiction valid.
Admission of questions during jury selection	Questions sought to test ability to follow law and credibility of interested witnesses.	Questions were improper hypotheticals seeking premature verdicts.	No abuse; questions proper to assess ability to follow the law.
Challenges for cause during jury selection	Trial court properly denied challenges for cause; per Roseboro procedure followed.	Courts abused discretion denying challenges for cause.	No abuse; defendant failed to preserve some challenges; others rejected for reasoned decisions.
Ineffective assistance—counsel admitting guilt	No single concession; defense closing statements debated.	Counsel conceded guilt without consent, violating Sixth Amendment.	Defense Closing remark did not amount to a guilty-plea concession; no per se IAC.
MAR and Miller framework	Miller retroactivity requires resentencing under Act for juvenile under 18.	Miller requires life-with-parole determination with mitigating factors.	Act applies; murder sentence vacated and remanded for resentencing with mitigating considerations.

State v. Marshall, 188 N.C. App. 744 (2008) (indictment essential to jurisdiction; element-allegation required)
State v. Wiggins, 334 N.C. 18 (1993) (robbery elements and threat/weapon requirements)
State v. Jackson, 306 N.C. 642 (1982) (indictment sufficiency to name person in charge)
State v. Rankin, 55 N.C. App. 478 (1982) (robbery indictment sufficiency—victim identification considerations)
State v. Moore, 65 N.C. App. 56 (1983) (ownership not required; indictment must name person in possession)
State v. Jones, 347 N.C. 193 (1997) (voir dire questions; permissible to assess ability to follow law)
State v. Roseboro, 351 N.C. 536 (2000) (preservation of challenges for cause; statutory procedure)
State v. King, 311 N.C. 603 (1984) (hearing impairment and juror excusal considerations)
State v. Harbison, 315 N.C. 175 (1985) (ineffective assistance—per se standard when counsel concedes guilt)
State v. Zuniga, 336 N.C. 508 (1994) (retroactive application of new sentencing rules)