State v. Strickland

Summary

The North Carolina Court of Appeals held that the defendant did not receive ineffective assistance of counsel and that the trial court did not err in admitting testimony concerning marijuana use. The court determined that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to enter the 13 June 2025 resentencing judgments, vacated those judgments, and vacated and remanded the 8 November 2024 judgments for resentencing because of sentencing errors.

Holdings

1. A criminal trial court is divested of jurisdiction after notice of appeal has been given and the applicable fourteen-day period for giving notice of appeal has expired; a later judgment entered without jurisdiction is void and must be vacated. The trial court therefore lacked jurisdiction to enter the 13 June 2025 resentencing judgment, and Defendant's certiorari petition seeking review of that judgment was moot.
2. Defendant failed to establish ineffective assistance from counsel's withdrawal of the objection to joinder because the offenses had a transactional connection and were properly joined, and Defendant could not show deficient performance or prejudice.
3. Defendant failed to establish ineffective assistance based on counsel's failure to seek self-defense or castle-doctrine instructions because Defendant was not the lawful occupant of Herlocker’s home and was assaulting and choking the lawful occupant of the cottage when Locklear intervened.
4. Defendant failed to establish ineffective assistance because he expressly chose not to testify after the trial court conducted an extensive colloquy concerning his rights, and the appellate court would not second-guess counsel's tactical decisions.
5. The trial court did not commit reversible error by admitting testimony concerning Defendant's purported marijuana use. Defendant failed to preserve a plain-error argument concerning the testimony admitted after counsel's earlier failures to object, and, assuming the later objection addressed the marijuana testimony, the objection was properly overruled.
6. The 8 November 2024 judgments contained prejudicial sentencing errors because Defendant was sentenced at the wrong prior-record level, received sentences outside applicable statutory ranges, and received an improper additional prior-record point. Those judgments were vacated and remanded for resentencing.
7. The trial court did not err by applying the aggravating factor concerning commission of an offense in the presence of a minor to the consolidated assault-by-strangulation judgment because that offense was the most serious offense in the consolidated judgment and could receive the aggravated sentence.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Defendant received ineffective assistance of counsel when counsel withdrew an objection to joinder, failed to give statutory notices of defenses, failed to request self-defense or castle-doctrine instructions, and did not call Defendant to testify.
2. Whether the trial court erred by admitting testimony concerning Defendant's marijuana use under North Carolina Rule of Evidence 404(b).
3. Whether the trial court had jurisdiction to enter the 13 June 2025 resentencing judgment after Defendant had given notice of appeal from the 8 November 2024 judgments.
4. Whether the 8 November 2024 sentences were legally erroneous because Defendant was assigned the wrong prior-record level, received sentences outside the applicable statutory ranges, received an improper additional prior-record point, and was improperly sentenced in connection with consolidated judgments.
5. Whether the aggravating factor that an offense was committed in the presence of a minor was properly applied to the consolidated assault-by-strangulation judgment.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded