State v. Borlase, 33A24, ___ N.C. ___ (Mar. 21, 2025)

In this Watauga County case, the Supreme Court majority affirmed the Court of Appeals decision finding no error with the imposition of two consecutive life sentences without parole for defendant’s first-degree murder convictions.

In April of 2019, when defendant was a senior in high school and seventeen years old, he stabbed his mother and father to death with a large kitchen knife. Defendant then took steps to cover up the murder, washing away the blood inside their home and hiding the bodies under bags of mulch and leaves from the yard, and went to smoke marijuana with his friends. After defendant was convicted of two counts of first-degree murder, the sentencing court performed the analysis required by G.S. 15A-1340.19B and -1340.19C, and sentenced defendant to two consecutive sentences of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. The Court of Appeals majority found no error, but defendant appealed based on the dissent, leading to the current opinion.

Taking up defendant’s appeal, the Supreme Court first explained the body of law around sentencing juveniles to life sentences without parole, including Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (2012), and North Carolina’s statutes implementing Miller’s process requirements in G.S. 15A-1340.19A to -1340.19D. Defendant argued that the Court of Appeals did not conduct a thorough appellate review of the sentencing court’s order, a proposition the Court rejected, noting “the majority below determined that the sentencing court’s written order showed that it exercised discretion consistent with the Eighth Amendment in sentencing defendant.” Slip Op. at17. The Court also rejected defendant’s argument that the Court of Appeals failed to apply the abuse of discretion standard, as the majority opinion concluded the sentencing court’s decision “was not arbitrary” Id. at 20. Finally, the Court rejected defendant’s challenges to the sentencing court’s consideration and weighting of evidence, as “the sentencing court considered defendant’s mitigating evidence and made explicit findings in its written order.” Id. at 22. The Court explained “[i]n the absence of express evidence that demonstrates a sentencing court did not consider mitigating evidence or exercise its discretion, we will not presume error.” Id. Here, defendant did not demonstrate the sentencing court refused to consider mitigating evidence, but instead challenged the weight and conclusions it reached, arguments the Court held had no merit.

Justice Earls, joined by Justice Riggs, dissented and would have reversed the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remanded for a new sentencing hearing. Id. at 27.