State v. Robinson ( 2022 )

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NORTH CAROLINA
2022-NCSC-60
No. 533A20
Filed 6 May 2022
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
v.
LEWIE P. ROBINSON
Appeal pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 70A-30(2) from the decision of a divided panel
of the Court of Appeals, 275 N.C. App. 330 (2020), affirming in part a judgment
entered 5 December 2018 by Judge Marvin P. Pope, Jr., in Superior Court, Buncombe
County, and remanding for resentencing. Heard in the Supreme Court on 21 March
2022.
Joshua Stein, Attorney General, by Jessica Macari, Assistant Attorney
General for the State.
Dylan J.C. Buffum, for defendant.
HUDSON, Justice.
¶1 In State v. Dew, this Court determined that “the State may charge a defendant
with multiple counts of assault only when there is substantial evidence that a distinct
interruption occurred between assaults.” 379 N.C. 64, 2021-NCSC-124, ¶ 27. Here,
we must apply that principle to the context of a guilty plea, in which the trial court
sentenced defendant to separate and consecutive sentences based on several assault
charges arising from one assaultive episode. Because the facts presented at the plea
STATE V. ROBINSON
2022-NCSC-60
Opinion of the Court
hearing did not establish that a distinct interruption occurred between assaults, we
affirm the decision of the Court of Appeals that the trial court lacked a sufficient
factual basis to accept defendant’s guilty plea. Because we see no basis for rejecting
defendant’s guilty plea in part, however, we modify the holding of the Court of
Appeals by vacating the entire plea arrangement and remanding to the trial court for
further proceedings.
I. Factual and Procedural Background
A. Charges and Guilty Plea
¶2 In May 2018, defendant and Leslie Wilson were in a dating relationship in
which Wilson became the victim of defendant’s domestic violence. On or around the
evening of 27 to 28 May 2018, Wilson and defendant were at Wilson’s home together
when defendant attacked her. Specifically, defendant grabbed Wilson around the
neck, punched her several times in the face and chest, and strangled her while
holding her down on a bed. When law enforcement arrived, Wilson stated that
defendant had held her captive for three days. Wilson sustained severe injuries to her
jaw, neck, and chest from the attack, requiring extensive medical treatment. On 4
December 2018, defendant was formally charged with four offenses: assault on a
female, violation of a domestic violence protective order (DVPO), assault inflicting
serious bodily injury, and assault by strangulation.
¶3 On 5 December 2018, defendant’s case came on for hearing in Buncombe
STATE V. ROBINSON
2022-NCSC-60
Opinion of the Court
County Superior Court. Through his appointed counsel, defendant agreed to plead
guilty to each of the four charged offenses. Under the terms of this original plea
agreement, the State agreed to consolidate the four offenses into one Class F Felony
judgment, with defendant receiving a single active prison sentence of 23–37 months.
In establishing the factual basis for defendant’s plea, the State described the facts
surrounding the charges as follows:
Your Honor, this occurred on May the 28th, 2018. Officers
responded just after midnight that morning . . . to [Wilson’s
house]. The caller was Ms. Leslie Wilson who is present
today, Your Honor. She stated that she’d been held captive
by the defendant for three days and there was an active
[DVPO] in place.
When officers arrived, Ms. Wilson was present and stated
that. . . defendant[ ] had grabbed her around the neck and
that while he was choking her she had a taken a box cutter
from him. During the assault that occurred over that night,
Your Honor, Ms. Wilson was punched a number of times
causing a broken jaw and a dislodged breast implant. She
also had small cuts on her hands that were consistent with
the altercation, as well as bruising around her neck. Ms.
Wilson describes that during the strangulation she was
unable to breathe and felt like she was going to pass out.
She had tenderness about her neck for a few days after.
Additionally, she was unable to eat food properly for about
six weeks after the assault due to the condition of her jaw,
Your Honor.
¶4 After defendant’s counsel agreed with this factual presentation by the State,
the trial court requested to hear directly from Wilson, who was present at the hearing.
In response to the trial court asking her to describe the incident, Wilson stated as
STATE V. ROBINSON
2022-NCSC-60
Opinion of the Court
follows:
We were both drinking and he was getting ill, so I dumped
all the beer out. Dumped out everything I could find. And
then I locked myself in the bathroom. And he broke two
doors trying to get to me and he kept telling me to tell him
where I had hid the beer. I didn’t want to tell him then that
I’d poured it out because I was so afraid. But I poured it
out, trying to keep him from getting to this point. And then
he got after me and I had a box cutter, which I was trying
to defend myself at that point, and he held me down on the
bed. I actually blacked out twice. And when he was
strangling me and told me I needed to learn where the
pressure points was, with his elbow on my jawbone and my
throat. And then when I got back up I did—I had the box
cutter but I was trying—I was scared to death. I thought
he was going to kill me. I couldn’t even hardly talk.
When the trial court subsequently asked Wilson whether she understood the terms
of defendant’s plea and why the court should accept the plea, Wilson responded
affirmatively and stated she “just want[ed] to close this chapter of [her] life and move
on.”
¶5 Ultimately, addressing defendant’s counsel, the trial court stated the
following:
So I’m telling you this, [defense counsel], I’m rejecting the
plea the way it is now. I will sentence [defendant] to four
consecutive sentences for active time, if you want to
renegotiate your plea arrangement. Otherwise, I’ll sign off
on it, won’t take it, and you can take it in front of another
judge and see if you can sell this bill of goods to some other
person. I’m not going to take it.
The court then took a brief recess to allow the parties to reconvene.
STATE V. ROBINSON
2022-NCSC-60
Opinion of the Court
¶6 Twenty-four minutes later, the parties returned with a new plea arrangement.
Under the new plea arrangement, defendant pleaded guilty to the same four charges
as in the original plea arrangement: one count of assault on a female, one count of
DVPO violation, one count of assault inflicting serious bodily injury, and one count of
assault by strangulation. However, where the original plea agreement consolidated
the four offenses into one sentence, the new plea arrangement offered four separate
sentences: one Class F felony judgment with an active sentence of 23–37 months; one
Class H felony judgment with a consecutive active sentence of 15–27 months; and two
consecutive A1 misdemeanor judgments of two 150-day suspended sentences with
supervised probation. Notably, the trial court did not solicit further factual
statements to support the new plea arrangement; instead, it relied solely on the
previous statements from the prosecutor and Wilson. After defendant duly agreed to
the plea arrangement, the trial court accepted it and entered judgment accordingly.
B. Court of Appeals
¶7 On 5 August 2019, defendant filed a petition for writ of certiorari with the
North Carolina Court of Appeals pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 15A-1444. Although
defendant’s petition requested appellate review of four issues, the Court of Appeals,
in its discretion, allowed defendant’s petition on only one of these issues: whether the
trial court had a sufficient factual basis to accept the new plea arrangement and enter
separate and consecutive judgments accordingly. Specifically, defendant argued that
STATE V. ROBINSON
2022-NCSC-60
Opinion of the Court
the trial court erred when it accepted the new plea arrangement and entered
judgment on three assault charges because the factual summary provided by the
State and Wilson did not establish more than one assault.
¶8 On 15 December 2020, the Court of Appeals filed a divided opinion in which
the majority concluded that “there was an insufficient factual basis for [d]efendant’s
guilty plea.” Robinson, 275 N.C. App. at 331.
¶9 First, the majority noted that by statute, a “judge may not accept a plea of
guilty . . . without first determining that there is a factual basis for the plea.” N.C.G.S.
§ 15A-1022(c) (2021). The court observed that such a factual basis may be provided
by a statement of facts by the prosecutor, and that a “trial court may also ‘consider
any information properly brought to its attention in determining whether there is a
factual basis for a plea of guilty.’ ” Id. at 334 (quoting State v. Dickens, 299 N.C. 76,
79 (1980) (cleaned up)). Further, relying on its own precedent in State v. Williams,1
the majority noted that “in order for a defendant to be charged with multiple counts
of assault, there must be multiple assaults. This requires evidence of a distinct
interruption in the original assault followed by a second assault.” Robinson, 275 N.C.
App. at 335 (quoting State v. Williams, 201 N.C. App. 161, 182 (2009)).
¶ 10 Here, the Court of Appeals majority noted, “the State’s summary of the factual
1The Court of Appeals opinion was published before this Court’s ruling in State v.
Dew, 379 N.C. 64, 2021-NCSC-124. In Dew, the Court clarified the requirements for being
charged with multiple counts of assault.
STATE V. ROBINSON
2022-NCSC-60
Opinion of the Court
basis for the plea was brief” and “indicated that this was a singular assault, without
distinct interruption, during which Wilson was strangled, beaten, and cut.” Robinson,
275 N.C. App. at 334–35. The majority observed that “nothing in the State’s factual
summary suggests that there was a distinct interruption that would support multiple
assault convictions.” Id. at 335. Instead, “the prosecutor’s language shows that she
only referenced a singular assault during her summary of the factual basis for the
plea arrangement,” using singular language such as “the assault” or “the altercation.”
Id. “Moreover,” the majority noted, “Wilson’s statement to the trial court at the
hearing provided no evidence of a distinct interruption in the assault.” Id. Finally,
the majority stated that “[t]he fact that [d]efendant held Wilson captive for three days
does not, alone, compel the conclusion that he committed multiple assaults against
Wilson during that period.” Id. at 336. Given this lack of substantial evidence of a
distinct interruption in the assault, the Court of Appeals majority concluded “that
[d]efendant has shown than the State did not provide a sufficient factual basis for the
trial court to accept his guilty plea and enter judgments on multiple assault charges.”
Id.
¶ 11 Second, because the offense of assault inflicting serious bodily injury (Class F
felony) is classified as more severe than the offenses of assault by strangulation (Class
H felony) and assault on a female (Class A1 misdemeanor), the Court of Appeals
majority concluded that “[d]efendant could only be punished for the offense of assault
STATE V. ROBINSON
2022-NCSC-60
Opinion of the Court
inflicting serious bodily injury, and not for the other two assault offenses as well.” Id.
at 338. Specifically, the majority reasoned that “[b]ecause the factual basis for
[d]efendant’s guilty plea . . . supported just one assault conviction, the trial court was
only authorized to enter judgment and sentence [d]efendant for one assault—that
which provided for the greatest punishment of the three assault offenses to which
[d]efendant pleaded guilty.” Id.
¶ 12 Finally, relying on this Court’s ruling in State v. Fields, the Court of Appeals
majority concluded that “the appropriate course of action is to arrest judgment on
[d]efendant’s convictions for assault on a female. . . and assault by strangulation[,]”
while affirming defendant’s conviction for assault inflicting serious bodily injury.
Robinson, 275 N.C. App. at 338 (citing State v. Fields, 374 N.C. 629, 636–37 (2020)).
The majority subsequently remanded the case to the trial court with instructions to
arrest these two lesser judgments and to resentence defendant on the remaining
charges. Id.¶ 13 Judge Berger dissented. See id. at 339 (Berger, J., dissenting). The dissent
would have denied defendant’s petition for writ of certiorari because, it its view,
defendant failed to make the required showing of merit or that error was probably
committed below. Specifically, the dissent relied upon this Court’s ruling in State v.
Rambert, 341 N.C. 173 (1995), to conclude that “[d]efendant’s separate and distinct
actions [during the assaultive episode] are not the same conduct,” and therefore that
STATE V. ROBINSON
2022-NCSC-60
Opinion of the Court
the trial court did not err in sentencing defendant for separate assaults. Id. at 339–
40 (Berger, J., dissenting).
¶ 14 In Rambert, the defendant was charged and convicted of three separate counts
of discharging a firearm into occupied property after firing three shots from a
handgun into an occupied car. 341 N.C. at 174–176. In rejecting defendant’s claim
that this evidence supported only a single conviction, not three, this Court “noted that
(1) the defendant employed his thought process each time he fired the weapon, (2)
each act was distinct in time, and (3) each bullet hit the vehicle in a different place.”
Dew, 379 N.C. 64, 2021-NCSC-124, ¶ 25 (citing Rambert, 341 N.C. at 177).
¶ 15 Applying these Rambert factors to the case at bar, the dissent here reasoned
that defendant’s actions of (1) grabbing Wilson by the neck, (2) punching Wilson in
the face and chest, and (3) placing his forearm on Wilson’s neck constituted “at least
three separate and distinct acts” for which the trial court could properly sentence
defendant separately. Robinson, 275 N.C. App. at 342–43 (Berger, J., dissenting).
Specifically, the dissent noted that defendant’s actions during the assaultive episode
each required a different thought process, were distinct in time, and resulted in
injuries to different body parts. Id. at 343 (Berger, J., dissenting). Accordingly, the
dissent would have held that the factual showing made at the hearing reasonably
supported the trial court’s decision to sentence defendant based on three separate
assault offenses. Id. (Berger, J., dissenting).
STATE V. ROBINSON
2022-NCSC-60
Opinion of the Court
C. Present Appeal
¶ 16 On 19 January 2021, the State filed a notice of appeal with this Court based
on the Court of Appeals dissent. In its appeal, the State argues that the trial court
properly determined that there was a factual basis for defendant’s guilty plea, and
therefore that the Court of Appeals majority erred in reversing the trial court’s
judgment and sentences.
¶ 17 First, the State argues that this Court has not yet identified the applicable
standard of review, but that it has made clear that the question before the trial court
is limited and the scope of review is narrow. The State contends that the Court of
Appeals majority erred in reviewing the factual basis for defendant’s guilty plea de
novo based on a “statutory interpretation” standard of review. Even if the correct
standard of review is de novo, the State contends, “review is limited to a narrower
question than what the Court of Appeals majority addressed . . . [because] [t]he test
applied by the trial court is merely whether there is some substantive material
independent of the plea itself which tends to show guilt. Because the trial court’s
determination below was “distinctly fact-bound[,]” the State contends, appellate
courts must consider it “with respect for [the] trial court[’s] discretion.”
¶ 18 Second, the State argues that the facts presented to the trial court during
defendant’s hearing adequately support defendant’s guilty plea to three distinct
assaults. The State notes that under N.C.G.S. § 15A-1022(c), a trial court “may not
STATE V. ROBINSON
2022-NCSC-60
Opinion of the Court
accept a plea of guilty . . . without first determining that there is a factual basis for
the plea.” The State notes that this determination requires that “some substantive
material independent of the guilty plea itself appear of record which tends to show
that defendant is, in fact, guilty.” State v. Sinclair, 301 N.C. 193, 199 (1980).
¶ 19 Here, the State argues, the facts presented at the hearing by the prosecutor
and Wilson adequately support the trial court’s sentencing under each distinct charge
of assault. As reasoned by the Court of Appeals dissent, the State contends that
defendant’s actions constitute three distinct assaults: (1) grabbing Wilson’s neck
(assault on a female); (2) punching Wilson in the face and chest (assault inflicting
serious bodily injury); and (3) pushing his forearm against Wilson’s neck (assault by
strangulation). The State argues that these facts “easily clear [Sinclair’s] threshold
of ‘some substantive material independent of the plea itself . . . which tends to show’
that the defendant committed the crimes charged against him.” As such, the State
argues that the Court of Appeals majority erred in ruling otherwise.
¶ 20 Third, the State argues that the Court of Appeals majority followed the wrong
analytical framework when it determined that only one assault had occurred.
Specifically, the State asserts that the majority gave improper weight to the “distinct
interruption” standard instead of following this Court’s precedent from State v.
STATE V. ROBINSON
2022-NCSC-60
Opinion of the Court
Rambert, 341 N.C. 173, (1995).2 Under Rambert, the State contends that the relevant
factors in determining whether a defendant committed one or multiple criminal acts
include: (1) whether each action required defendant to employ a separate thought
process; (2) whether each act was distinct in time; and (3) whether each act resulted
in a different outcome. Under this analysis, the State argues, no “distinct
interruption” is required between assaults because defendant attacked Wilson in “at
least three different ways,” rendering the three assault charges and sentences proper.
¶ 21 Finally, at oral arguments, which took place after this Court’s ruling in Dew,
the State argued that even under Dew’s distinct interruption requirement, sufficient
facts were summarized during the hearing to support the defendant’s separate
sentences. For instance, counsel for the State proffered that Wilson pouring the beer
down the sink, locking herself in the bathroom, blacking out twice, or defendant
“getting ill” could each reasonably constitute a distinct interruption in the assaultive
episode. Further, the State emphasized that Wilson told law enforcement that
defendant had held her captive in the home for three days, and that over this
extended period of time “there had to have been ebbs and flows in the momentum of
the attack—there had to be lapses of time to calm down, to eat, to go to the bathroom.”
2 The briefs from both the State and defendant here were filed before the publication
of this Court’s ruling in State v. Dew, 379 N.C. 64, 2021-NCSC-124. Dew was published
between the filing of the briefs and oral arguments.
STATE V. ROBINSON
2022-NCSC-60
Opinion of the Court
As such, the State argued, the trial court had a sufficient factual foundation for
defendant’s three separate judgments and sentences.
¶ 22 In response, defendant argues that the Court of Appeals majority did not err.
Regarding the proper standard of review, defendant asserts that the trial court’s
ruling on the sufficiency of a factual basis is subject to de novo appellate review
because “whether the record shows that there was a sufficient factual basis for the
plea is a quintessential question of law[.]” Because the only question following a
guilty plea is whether the uncontested facts support each of the elements of each of
the charged offenses, defendant argues that “[t]his is no different than appellate
review of a motion to dismiss after the close of evidence[,]” which is conducted de
novo.
¶ 23 Next, defendant argues that the Court of Appeals ruling was correct on the
merits because the facts presented to the trial court did not support entry of judgment
on three distinct assaults. Rather, defendant argues that the factual basis provided
by the State would have supported any one of the assault charges, but not all three.
Defendant particularly notes that the prosecutor’s description of the assault
repeatedly referred to “the assault” as a singular event, not multiple or distinct
attacks, and that Wilson’s description of the attack corroborated this singularity. As
such, defendant contends, “nothing in the State’s recitation would support an
inference that three separate assaults occurred[.]”
STATE V. ROBINSON
2022-NCSC-60
Opinion of the Court
¶ 24 In alignment with the majority opinion below, defendant argues that to
support multiple assault convictions stemming from a single transaction, evidence
must establish a distinct interruption in the transaction followed by a separate and
distinct assault. “While the Rambert Court determined each distinct act of
discharging a gun constituted a separate unit of prosecution and supported a separate
conviction[,]” defendant asserts, “nothing in Rambert suggested assault is defined the
same way.”
¶ 25 Finally, at oral arguments, defense counsel argued that Dew’s distinct
interruption requirement is controlling and dispositive in this case because the
factual summary provided by the State and Wilson at the hearing described the
assault as one continuous episode, without any distinct interruptions. Although
Wilson reported that defendant had held her captive for three days, defense counsel
noted that the hearing statements and the record only described one distinct
assaultive episode, not an ongoing attack over the course of three days. Accordingly,
defendant contends, the Court of Appeals majority correctly determined that the trial
court lacked a sufficient factual basis to sentence defendant on three separate assault
convictions.
II. Analysis
¶ 26 Now, we must determine whether the trial court had a sufficient factual basis
to sentence defendant to three separate and consecutive assault sentences. Under the
STATE V. ROBINSON
2022-NCSC-60
Opinion of the Court
distinct interruption requirement established by Dew, 379 N.C. 64, 2021-NCSC-124,
we hold that it did not, and therefore partially affirm the ruling of the Court of
Appeals majority. 2021-NCSC-124. However, because defendant’s guilty plea must
be accepted or rejected as a whole, rather than piecemeal, we modify the holding of
the Court of Appeals by vacating the entire plea arrangement and remanding to the
trial court for further proceedings.
A. Standard of Review
¶ 27 First, we must address the appropriate standard of review. Below, the Court
of Appeals majority determined that “[d]efendant raises an issue of statutory
construction[,]” and thus applied de novo review. Robinson, 275 N.C. App. at 333. On
appeal, the State contends that in light of the trial court’s limited test in these
circumstances, appellate review should be narrow and deferential. Defendant,
contrastingly, asserts that “[w]hether the record shows that there was a sufficient
factual basis for the plea is a quintessential question of law, which is properly subject
to de novo review.”
¶ 28 As an initial matter, we disagree with the reasoning of the Court of Appeals
majority that “[d]efendant raises an issue of statutory construction.” The core dispute
between the parties here does not revolve around competing interpretations of a
statute, but around competing applications of certain legal requirements to these
facts.
STATE V. ROBINSON
2022-NCSC-60
Opinion of the Court
¶ 29 Nevertheless, we agree with the ultimate determination of the Court of
Appeals majority and with defendant that this appeal is properly reviewed de novo.
Under N.C.G.S. § 15A-1022(c), a “judge may not accept a plea of guilty . . . without
first determining that there is a factual basis for the plea.” In State v. Agnew, this
Court observed that this statutory condition “requires an independent judicial
determination that a sufficient factual basis exists before a trial court accepts a guilty
plea.” 361 N.C. 333, 333–34 (2007) (emphasis added).3 At its core, such an
“independent judicial determination” requires the trial court to exercise judgment
and apply legal principles by considering whether the stipulated facts fulfill the
various elements of the offense or offenses to which the defendant is pleading guilty.
Although a defendant who pleads guilty can and does stipulate to the factual
summary presented by the State, this stipulation cannot and does not relieve the trial
court of its subsequent duty to conduct an “independent judicial determination that
a sufficient factual basis exists” to support the legal requirements of the charged
offenses. Id. Accordingly, we hold that a trial court’s determination as to whether a
sufficient factual basis exists to support a defendant’s guilty plea is a conclusion of
law reviewable de novo on appeal. Cf. Plott v. Plott, 313 N.C. 63, 73 (1985) (noting
3 Although this Court in Agnew did not formally state that it was reviewing the trial
court’s determination de novo, it functionally engaged in de novo review by considering anew
the factual information before the trial court when the defendant’s guilty plea was accepted.
See Agnew, 361 N.C. at 337 (considering the facts and record presented to the trial court
before its guilty plea determination).
STATE V. ROBINSON
2022-NCSC-60
Opinion of the Court
that a trial court’s determination is “properly denominated a conclusion of law [when]
it states the legal basis upon which [a] defendant’s liability may be predicated under
the applicable statute(s)”); Woodard v. Mordecai, 234 N.C. 463, 472 (1951) (observing
that conclusions of law are “reached by . . . an application of fixed rules of law”).
B. “Distinct Interruption” Analysis
¶ 30 Second, we must consider whether the trial court erred in determining that it
had a sufficient factual basis to sentence defendant to three separate and consecutive
assault sentences. As noted by both parties during oral arguments, this
determination is governed by this Court’s recent ruling in State v. Dew. 379 N.C. 64,
2021-NCSC-124.
¶ 31 Before Dew, different Court of Appeals decisions applied somewhat differing
methods of analysis to determine whether the facts of one assaultive episode
supported multiple assault charges. While these cases were unified in requiring “a
distinct interruption in the original assault followed by a second assault” in order to
support multiple assault charges, State v. Brooks, 138 N.C. App. 185, 189 (2000), they
were divided as to what factors illustrated such a “distinct interruption.” In some
cases, the Court of Appeals generally looked for evidence of a clear and significant
break or demarcation within the assaultive episode. See, e.g., Robinson, 275 N.C. App.
at 335–36 (finding “no evidence of a distinct interruption in the assault”); State v.
McPhaul, 256 N.C. App. 303, 317–18 (2017) (same). In others, the Court of Appeals
STATE V. ROBINSON
2022-NCSC-60
Opinion of the Court
more specifically applied this Court’s analysis in State v. Rambert to consider whether
the defendant’s actions employed different thought processes, were distinct in time,
and caused different injuries. See, e.g., State v. Dew, 270 N.C. App. 458, 462–63
(applying the three Rambert factors to determine whether there was a distinct
interruption between assaults); State v. Littlejohn, 158 N.C. App. 628, 636 (2003)
(same). The use of these differing analytical frameworks created tension between
various Court of Appeals opinions considering the issue. See, e.g., Robinson, 275 N.C.
App. at 340 (Berger, J., dissenting) (opining that the majority opinion “ignores
binding precedent and fails to conduct an analysis under State v. Rambert”); compare
State v. Dew, 270 N.C. App. 458, 462–63 (applying Rambert factors) with Robinson,
275 N.C. App. at 335–36 (not applying Rambert factors).
¶ 32 In Dew, this Court resolved this tension in favor of the more general “distinct
interruption” approach. 379 N.C. 64, 2021-NCSC-124. Because “[m]ultiple contacts
can still be considered a single assault[ ] even though each punch or kick would
require a different thought process, would not occur simultaneously, and would land
in different places on the victim’s body[,]” this Court “conclude[d] that the Rambert
factors are not the ideal analogy for an assault analysis.” Accordingly, we “decline[d]
to extend Rambert to assault cases generally.” Id. at ¶ 26. Instead, this Court
provided examples—though not an exclusive list—of what can qualify as a distinct
interruption: “an intervening event, a lapse of time in which a reasonable person may
STATE V. ROBINSON
2022-NCSC-60
Opinion of the Court
calm down, an interruption in the momentum of the attack, a change in location, or
some other clear break delineating the end of one assault and the beginning of
another.” Id. at ¶ 27. Likewise, the Court clarified “what does not constitute a distinct
interruption.” For instance,
the fact that a victim has multiple, distinct injuries alone
is not sufficient evidence of a distinct interruption such
that a defendant can be charged with multiple counts of
assault. The magnitude of the harm done to the victim can
be taken into account during sentencing but does not
automatically permit the State to stack charges against a
defendant without evidence of a distinct interruption.
Id. at ¶ 28. Further, a defendant’s “different methods of attack standing alone are
insufficient evidence of a distinct interruption.” Id. at ¶ 35.
¶ 33 Here, the parties agreed at oral argument that Dew’s “distinct interruption”
analysis governed this case but argued for different results. The State argued that
any number of events noted in the factual summaries provided by the prosecutor and
Wilson at the hearing could indicate a distinct interruption in the attack, including
Wilson pouring out the beer, Wilson locking herself in the bathroom, Wilson blacking
out, or defendant “getting ill.” Further, the State emphasized that Wilson reported
that defendant held her captive in the home for three days, and that over this
extended period of time “there had to have been ebbs and flows in the momentum of
the attack” constituting a distinct interruption. Contrastingly, defense counsel
asserted that the factual summary provided by the State and Wilson at the hearing
STATE V. ROBINSON
2022-NCSC-60
Opinion of the Court
clearly and repeatedly described the assault as one continuous episode, without any
evidence of distinct interruptions.
¶ 34 We agree with the Court of Appeals majority and defendant that the facts
provided at the hearing fail to establish evidence of a distinct interruption in the
assault to support multiple assault convictions and sentences. Neither the
prosecutor’s factual summary nor Wilson’s statement note “an intervening event, a
lapse of time in which a reasonable person may calm down, an interruption in the
momentum of the attack, a change in location, or some other clear break delineating
the end of one assault and the beginning of another.” Id. at ¶ 27. Instead, the factual
statements as given describe a confined and continuous attack in which defendant
choked and punched Wilson in rapid succession and without pause or interruption.
¶ 35 We acknowledge that one can imagine a distinct interruption being described
here with additional facts. For instance, if the facts indicated that the attack began
in the bathroom but then moved to the bedroom, such a change in location may
constitute a distinct interruption. Likewise, if there was evidence presented of
multiple different attacks occurring over the course of Wilson’s three-day captivity,
such a lapse of time and interruption in momentum could clearly constitute a distinct
interruption. However, like the trial court, this Court must consider the factual
summary not as it could have been, but as it was presented. As it was presented, the
factual summary provided by the State and Wilson at the hearing describe no such
STATE V. ROBINSON
2022-NCSC-60
Opinion of the Court
discernible sequence of events indicating a distinct interruption in the assault.
¶ 36 Without evidence of a distinct interruption in the assault, the trial court did
not have a sufficient factual basis upon which to sentence defendant to separate and
consecutive assault sentences. Accordingly, we affirm the ruling of the Court of
Appeals majority that the trial court erred when it accepted the plea and entered
judgment on the three different assault charges. Robinson, 275 N.C. App. at 333–34.
C. Remedy
¶ 37 Finally, we must consider an appropriate remedy. Below, the Court of Appeals
majority relied on this Court’s ruling in State v. Fields to determine that “the
appropriate course of action is to arrest judgment on [d]efendant’s convictions for
assault on a female . . . and assault by strangulation[,]” and thus remanded the case
to the trial court to resentence defendant only on the remaining two charges (assault
inflicting serious bodily injury and violation of a DVPO). Robinson, 275 N.C. App. at
338 (citing Fields, 374 N.C. at 636–37).
¶ 38 We cannot agree. Although this Court in Fields held that “the Court of Appeals
should have arrested the trial court’s judgment for [a lesser included offense] rather
than vacating the judgment[,]” 374 N.C. at 637, a key procedural difference between
the cases renders that remedy improper here: whereas the defendant in Fields was
convicted via jury trial, defendant here was convicted via guilty plea. Id. at 631.
Because a guilty plea, like a contract, is the result of nuanced negotiations between
STATE V. ROBINSON
2022-NCSC-60
Opinion of the Court
a defendant and the State, it is not the role of an appellate court to accept certain
portions of the plea deal while rejecting others. See State v. Collins, 300 N.C. 142, 149
(1980) (viewing a guilty plea “in light of the analogous law of contracts” in which “the
consideration given for the prosecutor’s promise . . . is defendant’s actual performance
by [pleading guilty]”). Rather, defendant’s plea arrangement constitutes a finished
product which must be accepted or rejected in its entirety, not piecemeal. See
N.C.G.S. § 15A-1023 (describing a judge’s authority to either accept or reject a plea
arrangement). Accordingly, we modify the ruling of the Court of Appeals on this issue
by arresting each of the trial court’s judgments and remanding to the trial court for
any further proceedings.
III. Conclusion
¶ 39 According to our decision in Dew, “the State may charge a defendant with
multiple counts of assault only when there is substantial evidence that a distinct
interruption occurred between assaults.” 379 N.C. 64, 2021-NCSC-124, ¶ 27. Because
the facts presented at defendant’s plea hearing did not establish that a distinct
interruption occurred between assaults, we affirm the ruling of the Court of Appeals
that the trial court lacked a sufficient factual basis to accept defendant’s guilty plea.
However, because defendant’s guilty plea must be accepted or rejected as a whole, we
modify the holding of the Court of Appeals by vacating the entire plea arrangement
STATE V. ROBINSON
2022-NCSC-60
Opinion of the Court
and remanding to that court for further remand to the trial court for further
proceedings.
MODIFIED AND AFFIRMED.
Justice BERGER did not participate in the consideration or decision of this
case.
Chief Justice NEWBY dissenting.
¶ 40 This case requires us to determine whether the trial court properly determined
that there was a factual basis for defendant’s guilty plea. A guilty plea must be
substantiated in fact by some substantive material independent of the plea itself
which tends to show that the defendant is guilty. Moreover, for sentences to be
entered against a defendant for multiple assaults arising from closely connected
conduct, the evidence must show a distinct interruption occurred between the
assaults. Here the prosecutor’s factual summary and the testimony of the victim
tended to show that there was a distinct interruption between each assault.
Accordingly, there was a factual basis for defendant’s plea to each assault and the
trial court properly entered each judgment and sentence against defendant. I
respectfully dissent.
¶ 41 A defendant’s appeal following a guilty plea is limited by statute. State v.
Ledbetter, 371 N.C. 192, 195, 814 S.E.2d 39, 42 (2018). N.C.G.S. § 15A-1444(e)
provides that a “defendant is not entitled to appellate review as a matter of right
when he has entered a plea of guilty . . . to a criminal charge in the superior court,
but he may petition the appellate division for review by writ of certiorari.” N.C.G.S.
§ 15A-1444(e) (2021). “Certiorari is a discretionary writ, to be issued only for good
and sufficient cause shown.” State v. Grundler, 251 N.C. 177, 189, 111 S.E.2d 1, 9
(1959) (emphasis omitted). The Court of Appeals may issue a writ of certiorari when
STATE V. ROBINSON
2022-NCSC-60
Newby, C.J., dissenting
the petition “show[s] ‘merit or that error was probably committed below.’ ” State v.
Ricks, 378 N.C. 737, 2021-NCSC-116, ¶ 6 (quoting Grundler, 251 N.C. at 189, 111
S.E.2d at 9). This Court “review[s] the Court of Appeals’ decision to allow a petition
for writ of certiorari . . . for an abuse of discretion.” Ricks, ¶ 5.
¶ 42 “[A] plea arrangement or bargain is ‘[a] negotiated agreement between a
prosecutor and a criminal defendant whereby the defendant pleads guilty to a lesser
offense or to one of multiple charges in exchange for some concession by the
prosecutor . . . .’ ” State v. Alexander, 359 N.C. 824, 830, 616 S.E.2d 914, 919 (2005)
(second alteration in original) (quoting Plea Bargain, Black’s Law Dictionary (7th ed.
1999)). Because “[a] plea of guilty . . . involves the waiver of various fundamental
rights,” State v. Sinclair, 301 N.C. 193, 197, 270 S.E.2d 418, 421 (1980), the General
Assembly has enacted legislation to protect criminal defendants, see State v. Agnew,
361 N.C. 333, 335, 643 S.E.2d 581, 583 (2007) (“[O]ur legislature has enacted laws to
ensure guilty pleas are informed and voluntary.”).
¶ 43 One such protection is that “guilty pleas must be substantiated in fact as
prescribed by [N.C.G.S. § 15A-1022(c)].” Id. N.C.G.S. § 15A-1022(c) provides that
[t]he judge may not accept a plea of guilty or no contest
without first determining that there is a factual basis for
the plea. This determination may be based upon
information including but not limited to:
(1) A statement of the facts by the prosecutor.
(2) A written statement of the defendant.
STATE V. ROBINSON
2022-NCSC-60
Newby, C.J., dissenting
(3) An examination of the presentence report.
(4) Sworn testimony, which may include reliable
hearsay.
(5) A statement of facts by the defense counsel.
N.C.G.S. § 15A-1022(c) (2021). Moreover,
[t]he five sources listed in the statute are not
exclusive, and therefore ‘[t]he trial judge may consider any
information properly brought to his attention.’ State v.
Dickens, 299 N.C. 76, 79, 261 S.E.2d 183, 185–86 (1980).
Nonetheless, such information ‘must appear in the record,
so that an appellate court can determine whether the plea
has been properly accepted.’ Sinclair, 301 N.C. at 198, 270
S.E.2d at 421. Further, in enumerating these five sources,
the statute ‘contemplate[s] that some substantive material
independent of the plea itself appear of record which tends
to show that defendant is, in fact, guilty.’ Id. at 199, 270
S.E.2d at 421–22.
Agnew, 361 N.C. at 336, 643 S.E.2d at 583 (second and third alterations in original).
¶ 44 Here defendant was charged with, inter alia, misdemeanor assault on a female,
see N.C.G.S. § 14-33(c)(2) (2021); felony assault inflicting serious bodily injury, see
N.C.G.S. § 14-32.4(a) (2021); and felony assault by strangulation, see N.C.G.S.
§ 14-32.4(b) (2021). Our case law defines “assault” as “an overt act or an attempt, or
the unequivocal appearance of an attempt, with force and violence, to do some
immediate physical injury to the person of another, which show of force . . . must be
sufficient to put a person of reasonable firmness in fear of immediate bodily harm.”
State v. Dew, 379 N.C. 64, 2021-NCSC-124, ¶ 23 (quoting State v. Roberts, 270 N.C.
655, 658, 155 S.E.2d 303, 305 (1967)). Moreover, for defendant to be sentenced for
STATE V. ROBINSON
2022-NCSC-60
Newby, C.J., dissenting
multiple assaults, it must appear that “a distinct interruption occurred between
assaults.” Id. ¶ 27.
¶ 45 Here there was significant substantive material independent from the plea
itself that tended to show a distinct interruption occurred between the assaults. First,
the prosecutor offered a factual summary at the plea hearing:
Your Honor, this occurred on May the 28th, 2018.
Officers responded just after midnight that morning, Your
Honor, to 37 Amirite Drive, A-m-i-r-i-t-e, Drive in Candler,
North Carolina. The caller was Ms. Leslie Wilson who is
present today, Your Honor. She stated that she’d been held
captive by the defendant for three days and there was an
active [domestic violence protective order] in place.
When officers arrived, Ms. Wilson was present and
stated that Lewie Robinson, the defendant, had grabbed
her around the neck and that while he was choking her she
had taken a box cutter from him. During the assault that
occurred over that night, Your Honor, Ms. Wilson was
punched a number of times causing a broken jaw and a
dislodged breast implant. She also had small cuts on her
hands that were consistent with the altercation, as well as
bruising around her neck. Ms. Wilson describes that during
the strangulation she was unable to breathe and felt like
she was going to pass out. She had tenderness about her
neck for a few days after. Additionally, she was unable to
eat food properly for about six weeks after the assault due
to the condition of her jaw, Your Honor. Thankfully, thanks
to health insurance, she was not out-of-pocket any money
for restitution which is why we’re not seeking restitution
in this case.
Then, when the trial court asked defendant’s attorney if she “agree[d] with the factual
presentation,” defendant’s attorney responded, “Yes.”
STATE V. ROBINSON
2022-NCSC-60
Newby, C.J., dissenting
¶ 46 At the trial court’s request, Ms. Wilson testified regarding the events
underlying the assault charges:
We were both drinking and he was getting ill, so I
dumped all the beer out. Dumped out everything I could
find. And then I locked myself in the bathroom. And he
broke two doors trying to get to me and he kept telling me
to tell him where I had hid the beer. I didn’t want to tell
him then that I’d poured it out because I was so afraid. But
I poured it out, trying to keep him from getting to this
point. And when he got after me and I had a box cutter,
which I was trying to defend myself at that point, and he
held me down on the bed. I actually blacked out twice. And
then he was strangling me and told me I needed to learn
where the pressure points was, with his elbow on my
jawbone and my throat. And then when I got back up I
did—I had the box cutter but I was trying—I was scared to
death. I thought he was going to kill me. I couldn’t even
hardly talk.
¶ 47 This evidence tends to show that distinct interruptions occurred between the
assaults. One assault began when defendant “broke two doors trying to get to” the
bathroom, where Ms. Wilson had locked herself in, and then “grabbed [Ms. Wilson]
around the neck and . . . was choking her” before she took a box cutter from him. At
some point, defendant “got after [Ms. Wilson]” and chased her from the bathroom to
the bedroom. This change in location constituted a distinct interruption. After this
interruption, defendant “held [Ms. Wilson] down on the bed.” Defendant “strang[led]
[Ms. Wilson] and told [her that she] needed to learn where the pressure points w[ere],
with his elbow on [Ms. Wilson’s] jawbone and [her] throat.” Defendant thus caused
Ms. Wilson to black out, creating another distinct interruption. When she awoke, Ms.
STATE V. ROBINSON
2022-NCSC-60
Newby, C.J., dissenting
Wilson still “had the box cutter” and tried to defend herself, but defendant
nonetheless committed another assault by “punch[ing] [Ms. Wilson] a number of
times causing a broken jaw and a dislodged breast implant.” Thus, the substantive
material independent of the plea tends to show that a distinct interruption occurred
between the assaults. Accordingly, the trial court did not lack authority to sentence
defendant for each assault.
¶ 48 In holding otherwise, the majority errs by wrongly applying a de novo standard
of review to the trial court’s determination that a factual basis existed for defendant’s
plea. In so doing, the majority expands the role of the trial court beyond that
envisioned by the statute, into one similar to the role performed when reviewing a
motion to dismiss. After a defendant moves to dismiss the charges during a trial, the
trial court must determine “whether there is substantial evidence (1) of each essential
element of the offense charged, or of a lesser offense included therein, and (2) of
defendant’s being the perpetrator of such offense.” State v. Scott, 356 N.C. 591, 595,
573 S.E.2d 866, 868 (2002) (quoting State v. Powell, 299 N.C. 95, 98, 261 S.E.2d 114,
117 (1980)). Similarly, the majority states that in determining whether a factual basis
exists for a guilty plea, the trial court must “consider[ ] whether the stipulated facts
fulfill the various elements of the offense or offenses to which the defendant is
pleading guilty.” When, however, “a defendant pleads guilty, no trial occurs,” State v.
Alexander, 2022-NCSC-26, ¶ 66 (Newby, C.J., concurring in the result), and there is
STATE V. ROBINSON
2022-NCSC-60
Newby, C.J., dissenting
no motion to dismiss; therefore, the substantial evidence standard does not apply.
¶ 49 Moreover, “[i]n a jury trial the judge instructs jurors on the law, and the jury
finds the facts and applies the law.” State v. Arrington, 371 N.C. 518, 521, 819 S.E.2d
329, 331 (2018). When a defendant pleads guilty, however, he admits his conduct
constitutes the offense and waives the right to have a jury make that determination.
See Sinclair, 301 N.C. at 197, 270 S.E.2d at 421 (“A plea of guilty . . . involves the
waiver of . . . the right to trial by jury.”). Specifically, in a “transcript of plea,” which
the trial court may properly consider under N.C.G.S. § 15A-1022(c)(2), the defendant
and his attorney represent to the trial court that a factual basis exists for the guilty
plea. See Dickens, 299 N.C. at 79, 261 S.E.2d at 186 (“ ‘[A] written statement of the
defendant’ ordinarily consists of defendant’s written answers to the questions
contained in a document entitled ‘Transcript of Plea.’ ” (quoting N.C.G.S.
§ 15A-1022(c)). Accordingly, given the defendant’s representations and the nature of
a plea hearing, the parties do not fully develop the factual record before the trial
court. Thus, when accepting a guilty plea, the trial court’s role is properly limited to
determining whether the plea is “substantiated in fact,” Agnew, 361 N.C. at 335, 643
S.E.2d at 583, by “some substantive material independent of the plea itself . . . which
tends to show that defendant is, in fact, guilty,” id. at 336, 643 S.E.2d at 583.
Therefore, “[i]f the evidence considered in the light most favorable to the State”
supports the guilty plea, then the trial court may accept the plea. Sinclair, 301 N.C.
STATE V. ROBINSON
2022-NCSC-60
Newby, C.J., dissenting
at 197, 270 S.E.2d at 421.
¶ 50 Using a de novo review of this limited factual record, however, the majority
then holds that “the facts provided at the hearing fail to establish evidence of a
distinct interruption in the assault.” One need not “imagine,” as the majority does,
that a distinct interruption “such [as] a change in location” occurred in this case.
Rather, the evidence demonstrates exactly the hypothetical situation posited by the
majority—one assault occurred in the bathroom, and then defendant chased Ms.
Wilson into the bedroom and assaulted her again. Moreover, after defendant
strangled Ms. Wilson, causing her to black out, the “lapse of time and interruption in
momentum” imagined by the majority occurred until Ms. Wilson awoke. Defendant
then assaulted Ms. Wilson a third time. Thus, the evidence tends to show two distinct
interruptions occurred.1
¶ 51 The trial court did not err by determining that a sufficient factual basis existed
for defendant’s guilty plea. The Court of Appeals therefore abused its discretion by
allowing defendant’s petition for writ of certiorari. The decision of the Court of
Appeals should be reversed and the trial court’s entry of judgment and sentences
against defendant should be affirmed. I respectfully dissent.
Justice BARRINGER joins in this dissenting opinion.
1Further, it should be noted that at the time the trial court accepted the plea, it did
not have the benefit of this Court’s decision in State v. Dew, 379 N.C. 64, 2021-NCSC-124,
¶ 27.