Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
STATE of North Carolina v. Roszell LAND, Defendant.
I. Background
On 24 November 2017, Defendant Roszell Land was pulled for speeding by a state trooper. Defendant's speed clocked in at 92 miles an hour in a 70 miles per hour zone. Defendant was issued a citation for speeding. A jury convicted Defendant of speeding 15 miles per hour or more over the posted speed limit.
During sentencing, the State contended that Defendant should be sentenced at a prior record level three based on prior convictions. To prove the existence of these prior convictions, the State offered a “CJ-Leads” computer printout showing Defendant's record. Defendant objected.
The court relied on the printout and found that Defendant had seven prior convictions for sentencing purposes. Accordingly, the court imposed an active sentence of five days, as well as costs and a fine. Defendant appealed.
II. Analysis
Defendant makes two arguments on appeal: (1) whether it was proper to sentence Defendant as a prior record level three when the only evidence to support that information was a prior record level worksheet, and (2) whether it was proper for Defendant to have received sentencing points for offenses that could have been labeled as infractions.
The State concedes that the use of only a prior record level worksheet to determine Defendant's prior record level is insufficient. See State v. Alexander, 359 N.C. 824, 827, 616 S.E.2d, 914, 917 (2005) (“There is no doubt that a mere worksheet, standing alone, is insufficient to adequately establish a defendant's prior record level.”). Thus, this issue will be remanded to the trial court so that it can be revised.
The State does not concede the second issue. However, due to the concession of the first issue, we need not address the second issue at this time.
III. Conclusion
We, therefore, uphold the conviction but remand for resentencing.
REMANDED FOR RESENTENCING.
Report per Rule 30(e).
DILLON, Judge.
Judges ZACHARY and BROOK concur.
Response sent, thank you
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: No. COA19-665
Decided: July 07, 2020
Court: Court of Appeals of North Carolina.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
FindLaw for Legal Professionals
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy. This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)