State v. Fenner, 289PA23, ___ N.C. ___ (Mar. 21, 2025)

In this Wake County case, the Supreme Court affirmed and modified the unpublished Court of Appeals decision finding no error with defendant’s sentence despite the trial court’s failure to accurately advise him of the full sentencing range he faced if he were convicted.

Before going on trial for various felonies in 2022, defendant told the trial court he wished to waive his right to counsel and proceed pro se, and the trial court followed G.S. 15A-1242 by providing defendant with the required colloquy, including the range of permissible punishments he faced. Unfortunately, the trial court miscalculated, informing defendant he faced “75 to 175 years in prison” when he was actually sentenced after his conviction to “121 to 178 years in prison.” Slip Op. at 2. On appeal, the Court of Appeals rejected defendant’s argument that this was error, explaining that he understood he was subject to a life sentence. Defendant petitioned for discretionary review, arguing the Court of Appeals’ precedent on this issue conflicted with the Supreme Court’s interpretation of G.S. 15A-1242, leading to the current case.

The Supreme Court explained the issue as the practical consideration of how long a defendant could be imprisoned, as “the ‘range of permissible punishments’ described in [G.S.] 15A-1242 contains a ceiling equivalent to the defendant’s natural life.” Id. at 8. Here the trial court made a miscalculation, but if “the miscalculation and the actual range are tantamount to the remainder of the defendant’s life, the trial court complies with the statute.” Id. Put more simply, defendant was informed “if convicted, he could spend the rest of his life in prison,” and “[t]hat accurately conveyed the sentencing range that [defendant] faced in this case and therefore confirmed that [defendant] comprehended the range of permissible punishments.” Id. at 9.

The Court dispensed with defendant’s other issues with the Court of Appeals decision, but modified the decision to the extent that it did not call for the trial court to advise defendant of all the charges against him. Although the Court did not interpret the Court of Appeals decision to say this, the Court provided the following guidance to trial courts:

When calculating the permissible range of punishments, the best practice is for trial courts to use the checklist of inquiries we articulated in State v. Moore, 362 N.C. 319, 327–28 (2008). This includes informing the defendant of all charges in the case and the minimum and maximum possible sentence the defendant faces if convicted of all those charges.

Id. at 11.