State v. Penland
Court of Appeals of North Carolina
1Opinion of the Court
ARNOLD, Judge.
In his sole assignment of error, defendant contends the trial court erred in considering the habitual felon charge as a separate crime and in sentencing him separately as an habitual felon. We agree.
The only reason for establishing that an accused is an habitual felon is to enhance the punishment which would otherwise be appropriate for the substantive felony which he has allegedly committed while in such a status. State v. Allen, 292 N.C. 431, 233 S.E. 2d 585 (1977). Being an habitual felon is not a crime but is a status. Id. The status itself, standing alone, will not support…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- State v. AllenSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1977
- State v. ThomasCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1986
- State v. AldridgeCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1984
3Cited by12 opinions
- State v. SmithCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2000
- State v. DammonsCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2003
- State v. WilsonCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2000
- State v. CrumpCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2006
- State v. MasseyCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2009
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.