242 N.C. App. 475
N.C. Ct. App.2015Background
- Defendant pled guilty to first degree rape and first degree sexual offense under a plea agreement; sentences to be consolidated to 300–372 months, with related charges dismissed.
- Trial court sua sponte sought and granted MAR relief under G.S. 15A-1420(d), concluding the sentence was grossly disproportionate and unconstitutional.
- The MAR order and accompanying judgments reduced the sentence from 300–420 months to a shorter term.
- State sought appellate review via writ of certiorari; Defendant argued lack of jurisdiction and challenged the MAR proceedings.
- The Court of Appeals initially granted certiorari after Stubbs; the opinion analyzes jurisdiction and, ultimately, vacates the MAR order and remands for a new sentencing hearing.
- The majority concludes the MAR order was error for improper findings and Eighth Amendment analysis; remand for new sentencing hearing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jurisdiction to review MAR via certiorari | State contends we have certiorari jurisdiction to review the MAR. | Thomsen asserts lack of jurisdiction and argues MAR review is not properly reviewable here. | We have jurisdiction to review via certiorari. |
| Validity of trial court's findings supporting MAR | State relies on mitigating and contextual findings to justify MAR. | Thomsen argues the findings are inaccurate or unsupported and improperly relied on to grant relief. | Findings 21, 23, 77 and certain mitigating factors are abuse of discretion and invalid. |
| Eighth Amendment analysis of mandatory minimum sentence | State contends 300/420 month range could be grossly disproportionate under Eighth Amendment when misapplied. | Thomsen argues the original sentence was not grossly disproportionate given comparable cases and mandatory minimums. | Original 300-month minimum not grossly disproportionate; MAR vacated. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Stubbs, 368 N.C. 40 (2015) (jurisdiction for MAR review via certiorari; impact on review of MAR orders)
- State v. Linemann, 135 N.C.App. 734 (1999) (no review right for MAR granted under 15A-1420(d))
- State v. Canty, 321 N.C. 520 (1988) (scope of mitigating factors; canty standard)
- State v. Frogge, 359 N.C. 228 (2005) (standard for reviewing MAR orders)