State v. Jones
Supreme Court of North Carolina
1Opinion of the Court
EXUM, Justice.
Defendant argues he is entitled to a new sentencing hearing because of errors committed by the sentencing judge. Specifically, he argues Judge Tillery should have found certain mitigating factors which were supported by the evidence, should not have found as an aggravating factor that the offenses were committed for pecuniary gain, and should not have found defendant “occupied a position of leadership or dominance of other participants” as an aggravating factor in sentencing on the armed robbery charge. We conclude defendant is entitled to a new sentencing hearing because of…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- State v. AhearnSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1983
- Kidd v. EarlySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1976
- North Carolina National Bank v. BurnetteSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1979
- State v. DavisCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1982
- State v. AbdullahSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1983
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by138 opinions
- State v. McKoySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1988
- State v. BlackwelderSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1983
- State v. PriceSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1990
- State v. RichardsonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1995
- State v. VickSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1995
133 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.