State v. Patton

35 Citing cases

  1. State v. Taylor

    156 N.C. App. 172 (N.C. Ct. App. 2003)   Cited 34 times
    In Taylor, the trial court entered judgment on the defendant's habitual felon status and sentenced the defendant on that status alone.

    In this appeal, we are constrained to hold under North Carolina law, the trial court erred by entering three judgments on habitual felony status, and sentencing defendant consecutively upon that status alone. See State v. Patton, 342 N.C. 633, 466 S.E.2d 708 (1996). Accordingly, we vacate the judgments entered by the trial court purporting to sentence defendant on obtaining the status of habitual felon.

  2. State v. Bowens

    140 N.C. App. 217 (N.C. Ct. App. 2000)   Cited 47 times
    Concluding the trial court erred in denying the defendant's motion to dismiss the charge of maintaining a dwelling, but affirming the trial court's denial of the defendant's motion to dismiss the charge of possession with intent to sell or deliver marijuana

    A separate habitual felon indictment is not required for each principal felony. State v. Patton, 342 N.C. 633, 635, 466 S.E.2d 708, 709 (1996). Furthermore, there is no requirement the habitual felon indictment specifically refer to the principal felony.

  3. State v. Rorie

    587 S.E.2d 681 (N.C. Ct. App. 2003)

    Our Supreme Court has held that "a separate habitual felon indictment is not required for each substantive felony indictment." State v. Patton, 342 N.C. 633, 635, 466 S.E.2d 708, 709 (1996). Defendant argues that Patton was wrongly decided and submits that we should overturn that decision.

  4. State v. Pratt

    580 S.E.2d 431 (N.C. Ct. App. 2003)

    Id., N.C. App. at 78, 286 S.E.2d at 863. Defendant, however, argues Keyes has been disapproved by State v. Patton, 342 N.C. 633, 466 S.E.2d 708 (1996), and therefore, his habitual felon conviction should be vacated. Contrary to defendant's assertion, the holding in Keyes was in no way modified by Patton.

  5. United States v. Bronson

    NO. 5:19-CR-225-FL-1 (E.D.N.C. Aug. 25, 2020)

    See N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-7.3; State v. Patton, 342 N.C. 633, 634-36 (1996). When placed on post-supervision release on state charges as recently as 2013, defendant committed violations for failing to pay supervision fees, failing to pay court-ordered restitution, failing to report to his probation officer as directed, having contact with known drug users, and possessing an unauthorized controlled substance.

  6. Wilson v. Hooks

    CIVIL CASE NO. 5:19-cv-00108-MR (W.D.N.C. Jul. 8, 2020)

    Put simply, once habitual felon status is achieved, and the supporting felonies have not subsequently been invalidated, the status is confirmed and allows for a defendant's sentence to be enhanced upon the defendant's conviction for violating state law. See State v. Patton, 342 N.C. 633, 635 (1996) (being a habitual felon is not a crime but rather a status which subjects the defendant to increased punishment for an underlying crime). The Supreme Court of the United States has repeatedly rejected challenges to enhanced sentences—which are based on a defendant's status as a recidivist offender—on the grounds that such sentences do not violate the ex post facto clause, due process, equal protection, or double jeopardy.

  7. Minton v. Perry

    1:12CV497 (M.D.N.C. Nov. 4, 2014)   Cited 4 times
    Finding that alleged failure to consider "at least eight mitigating factors" was not cognizable on federal habeas review

    North Carolina case law predating this amendment by over a decade belies Petitioner's position. See, e.g., State v. Patton, 342 N.C. 633, 635, 466 S.E.2d 708, 710 (1996) (affirming sentence enhanced by habitual felon status and explicitly recognizing that "[b]eing an habitual felon is not a crime but rather a status . . ."). The portion of Petitioner's first claim grounded on purported violations of the Fifth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution similarly fails as conclusory and unsupported, Nickerson v. Lee, 971 F.2d 1125, 1136 (4th Cir. 1992) (recognizing that "[u]nsupported, conclusory allegations do not entitle a habeas petitioner to an evidentiary hearing"), abrogated on other grounds by, Gray v. Netherland, 518 U.S. 152, 165-66 (1996).

  8. Tucker v. Terrell

    1:12-cv-194-RJC (W.D.N.C. Sep. 6, 2013)

    Put simply, once habitual felon status is achieved, and the supporting felonies have not subsequently been invalidated, the status is confirmed and allows for a defendant's sentence to be enhanced for so long as the defendant is convicted of violating state law. See State v. Patton, 342 N.C. 633, 635 (1996) (being a habitual felon is not a crime but, rather, a status which subjects the defendant to increased punishment). More to the point, for the purpose of resolving this claim in a federal habeas proceeding, the Court notes that the Supreme Court of the United States has repeatedly rejected challenges to enhanced sentences—which are based on a defendant's status as a recidivist offender—on the grounds that such sentences do not violate the ex post facto clause, due process, equal protection, or double jeopardy.

  9. Millsaps v. Smith

    5:12-cv-146-RJC (W.D.N.C. Jul. 12, 2013)

    See N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-7.1; State v. Patton, 342 N.C. 633, 635 (1996) (being a habitual felon is not a crime but, rather, a status which subjects the defendant to increased punishment). More to the point, in this federal habeas proceeding, the Supreme Court of the United States has repeatedly rejected challenges based on recidivism against ex post facto, due process, equal protection, and double jeopardy.

  10. Wright v. Keller

    3:11-cv-341-RJC (W.D.N.C. Jun. 6, 2013)

    Once habitual felon status is achieved, it is never lost and allows a defendant's sentences to be enhanced. N.C. GEN. STAT. § 14-7.1 (2007). See State v. Patton, 342 N.C. 633, 635, 466 S.E.2d 708, 710 (1996) (being a habitual felon is not a crime but, rather, a status which subjects the individual to increased punishment). The U.S. Supreme Court has upheld as constitutional enhancements based on recidivism against ex post facto, due process, equal protection, and double jeopardy challenges.