State v. RileyÂ, 16-700

Defendant Carlos A. Riley Jr. was involved in a December 2012 traffic stop during which he and Officer Kelly Stewart fought; defendant took the officer’s service weapon and Stewart was shot. Defendant later pleaded guilty in federal court to being a felon in possession of a firearm (18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1)) arising from the same incident and also pleaded guilty in state court to possession of a firearm by a felon (N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-415.1(a)).
A jury acquitted defendant of most charges but convicted him of common law robbery; at sentencing the trial court assigned prior-record points for the federal conviction, treating it as a Class G felony and placing defendant at prior record level IV.
Defense challenged the scoring on appeal, arguing the State failed to prove the federal conviction was “substantially similar” to a North Carolina Class G felony as required by N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-1340.14(e).
The State introduced the federal plea agreement and judgment identifying the offense as a § 922(g)(1) conviction, but did not clearly introduce the text/version of the federal statute at sentencing.
The trial court conducted an in camera review of sealed Professional Standards Division (internal affairs) records and found no Brady material; defendant appealed and this Court conducted its own review of the sealed records.

Issue	State's Argument	Riley's Argument	Held
Whether the federal § 922(g)(1) conviction may be treated as a Class G felony for NC prior-record scoring under § 15A-1340.14(e)	The federal conviction (plea and judgment) shows felon-in-possession conduct substantially similar to NC’s possession-by-a-felon offense; court may count four points.	The State failed to prove (or stipulate) that the federal offense is substantially similar to a Class G felony, so prior-record points were improperly assigned.	The error (if any) in the State’s proof was harmless: § 922(g)(1) is substantially similar to NC § 14-415.1(a), so treating the federal conviction as a Class G felony for scoring was correct.
Whether the trial court suppressed Brady material by not producing sealed internal investigation records	Trial court reviewed sealed records in camera, identified items useful for cross-examination, and found no Brady material withheld.	Defendant contends sealed records may contain undisclosed exculpatory/impeachment (Brady) evidence.	This Court’s independent review of the sealed records disclosed no Brady material that had not been provided to defense.

Burgess v. State, 216 N.C. App. 54 (discusses need to tie out-of-state statutes to the convictions for substantial-similarity analysis)
Hanton v. State, 175 N.C. App. 250 (substantial-similarity is a legal question comparing elements)
State v. Sanders, 367 N.C. 716 (out-of-state statute not substantially similar where elements differ materially)
State v. Hogan, 234 N.C. App. 218 (elements disparity defeats substantial-similarity finding)
Rich v. State, 130 N.C. App. 113 (out-of-state statute may be proven by printed statute copies)
State v. Morgan, 164 N.C. App. 298 (State must show the statute under which prior conviction was obtained corresponds to the copy offered)
State v. Henderson, 201 N.C. App. 381 (harmless-error remand where record insufficient for appellate substantial-similarity review)
United States v. Wells, 98 F.3d 808 (discusses interstate-commerce nexus for § 922(g) convictions)
United States v. Gallimore, 247 F.3d 134 (showing firearm manufactured out-of-state satisfies § 922(g)’s commerce element)
United States v. Verna, 113 F.3d 499 (broad interpretation of "affecting commerce" for § 922(g))
Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (suppression of material favorable evidence violates due process)
United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667 (defines materiality standard for undisclosed favorable evidence)
State v. Alston, 307 N.C. 321 (Brady materiality focused on effect on outcome, not trial preparation)