State v. Stubbs
232 N.C. App. 274
| N.C. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- In 1973 Larry Connell Stubbs (then 17–18) pled guilty to second-degree burglary and assault with intent to commit rape; he received a life sentence for burglary and 15 years concurrent for the assault.
- Under 1973 law life prisoners were parole-eligible after 10 years; Stubbs was paroled in December 2008 but had parole revoked after a 2010 DWI conviction and was returned to custody.
- In May 2011 Stubbs filed a pro se motion for appropriate relief (MAR) arguing his life sentence for second-degree burglary is now unconstitutionally excessive under evolving Eighth Amendment standards and that structured-sentencing limits show disproportionality.
- The trial court granted relief in December 2012, vacated the life sentence, resentenced Stubbs to 30 years, and ordered his immediate release with credit for time served. The State sought certiorari and supersedeas to stay that order and appealed.
- The Court of Appeals considered (1) whether the trial court had jurisdiction under N.C.G.S. § 15A-1415 to modify a decades‑old sentence and (2) whether the Eighth Amendment (and evolving standards) invalidated Stubbs’s life-with-parole sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Stubbs) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jurisdiction to entertain MAR under § 15A-1415(b) | Trial court lacked jurisdiction to modify a 1973 judgment via MAR | MAR properly invoked § 15A-1415(b)(4) & (b)(8) because sentence is now unconstitutional/unauthorized | Court held trial court did have jurisdiction under § 15A-1415(b)(4) and (b)(8) to consider whether the sentence was invalid as a matter of law |
| Eighth Amendment proportionality — categorical or case-specific test | Trial court applied evolving-standards test improperly; State argued sentence allowing parole is not categorically unconstitutional | Stubbs argued sentencing norms (Structured Sentencing Act) show gross disproportionality and evolving decency requires resentencing | Court held trial court misapplied Supreme Court precedent: life with possibility of parole, which affords realistic opportunity for release, is not per se Eighth Amendment violation here; trial court erred to the extent it invalidated the life sentence |
| Relevance of Structured Sentencing Act/retroactivity | Structured Sentencing Act not retroactive; relief should not be achieved by judicially applying the Act | Stubbs used the Act as objective evidence of contemporary standards of decency and proportionality | Court rejected retroactive application and refused to treat the Act as a judicial vehicle to reduce sentence; legislative/parole mechanisms are proper forum for prospective proportionality adjustments |
| Availability of appellate review / certiorari jurisdiction | State obtained certiorari to review trial court order; issue whether Court of Appeals had jurisdiction to grant certiorari | Stubbs contended appeal/certiorari was improper procedural route | Majority treated petition panel’s grant of certiorari as governing (law of the case) and reached merits; concurring and dissenting opinions dispute scope of certiorari jurisdiction and whether this court should have entertained the State’s petition |
Key Cases Cited
- Trop v. Dulles, 356 U.S. 86 (recognizing Eighth Amendment evolves with standards of decency)
- Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97 (Eighth Amendment protects dignity; scope not limited to physical barbarity)
- Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. 48 (juvenile life-without-parole for nonhomicide violates Eighth Amendment; requires meaningful opportunity for release)
- Kennedy v. Louisiana, 554 U.S. 407 (Eighth Amendment proportionality draws meaning from current norms)
- Harmelin v. Michigan, 501 U.S. 957 (plural views on narrow proportionality principle; upheld severe mandatory sentence)
- Rummel v. Estelle, 445 U.S. 263 (upholding life sentence with parole in recidivist context; caution against courts creating sentencing trends)
- Solem v. Helm, 463 U.S. 277 (example of Eighth Amendment disproportionate-sentencing reversal)
- State v. Whitehead, 365 N.C. 444, 722 S.E.2d 492 (N.C. S.Ct. discussion on retroactivity and role of parole commission; judiciary should not substitute discretionary sentence reduction for legislative action)