Jump To

Top Caption Syllabus [Combined Opinion

                  by Judge Michael Stading](https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10810283/state-v-stanford/#o1)

Support FLP

CourtListener is a project of Free
Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. Members help support our work and get special access to features.

Please become a member today.

Join Free.law Now

March 18, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note

State v. Stanford

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

• Citations: None known
• Docket Number: 25-700

• Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

• Opinion

• Authorities (5)

• Cited By (0)

• Summaries (0)

• Similar Cases (2.5K)

• PDF

Syllabus

sentencing; prior record level; habitual felon

Combined Opinion

                        by Judge Michael Stading

An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute controlling legal
authority. Citation is disfavored, but may be permitted in accordance with the provisions of Rule
30(e)(3) of the North Carolina Rules of Appellate Procedure.

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NORTH CAROLINA

No. COA25-700

Filed 18 March 2026

Wake County, Nos. 22CR264958-910, 22CR264961-910,22CR002678-910

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA

v.

MARK ANTHONY STANFORD, Defendant.

Appeal by Defendant from order entered 18 September 2024 by Judge Rebecca

W. Holt in Wake County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 27 January

2026.

Tin Fulton Walker & Owen, PLLC, by Attorney Vernetta Alston, for defendant-
appellant.

Attorney General Jeff Jackson, by Special Deputy Attorney General T. Hill
Davis, III, for the state.

STADING, Judge.

Mark Anthony Stanford (“Defendant”) appeals from an order sentencing him

in the presumptive range to a term of 105 to 138 months’ imprisonment. Specifically,

Defendant maintains the trial court erred in his sentencing on the grounds that it

impermissibly used his convictions for habitual felon status to elevate his prior record

level. After careful review, we hold the trial court did not err.
STATE V. STANFORD

Opinion of the Court

I. Background

Evidence tends to show that on 10 August 2022, law enforcement officers with

the Raleigh Police Department encountered Defendant during a routine patrol at an

apartment complex in Raleigh. Officer Alonso noticed a vehicle with one occupant

and Defendant leaning on the outside of the vehicle. Officer Alonso observed

Defendant “discarding something that’s in his hand, which is consistent . . . with a

hand-to-hand drug transaction.” Officer Alonso and Officer Bachman approached the

vehicle.

As they approached the vehicle, Officer Alonso noticed the vehicle’s occupant

“frantically trying to hide something on the floorboard” while Defendant walked

away. Officer Bachman remained with the vehicle’s occupant. Officer Alonso gave

commands for Defendant to stop, but he continued to flee while “reaching towards his

waistband,” drawing a firearm, and rounding a corner of the apartment complex.

Officer Alonso drew his firearm in response and proceeded after Defendant. While

still refusing Officer Alonso’s commands to stop, Defendant “made that last right turn

out of [his] view” and subsequently he heard “a metal object hitting concrete.” Officer

Bachman flanked Defendant and apprehended him on the other side of the apartment

complex in a parking lot. After Defendant was secured, the officers located the

firearm in the location Officer Alonso heard it discarded.

On 22 September 2022 the Wake County Grand Jury returned a true bill of

indictment charging Defendant for possession of a firearm by felon, carrying

-2-
STATE V. STANFORD

Opinion of the Court

concealed weapon, and resisting a public officer. On 10 January 2023 the Wake

County Grand Jury returned a true bill of indictment charging Defendant with

attaining habitual felon status. Defendant’s trial commenced on 18 September 2024,

and the jury found him guilty of all charges. Defendant pleaded guilty to having

attained habitual felon status. At sentencing, accounting for Defendant’s habitual

felon status, the trial court found Defendant was a prior record level (“PRL”) IV for

felony sentencing. The trial court accordingly sentenced Defendant to an active term

of 105 to 138 months’ imprisonment. Defendant appealed.

II. Analysis

On appeal, Defendant argues the trial court erred in the calculation of his PRL.

For the reasons below, we disagree.

“The determination of an offender’s prior record level is a conclusion of law that

is subject to de novo review on appeal.” State v. Bohler, 198 N.C. App. 631, 633, 681

S.E.2d 801, 804 (2009) (citation omitted). “It is not necessary that an objection be

lodged at the sentencing hearing in order for a claim that the record evidence does

not support the trial court’s determination of a defendant’s prior record level to be

preserved for appellate review.” Id. (citation omitted). “Before sentencing a criminal

defendant, the trial court must first determine the defendant’s prior record level.”

State v. Weldon, 258 N.C. App. 150, 160, 811 S.E.2d 683, 691 (2018) (citing N.C. Gen.

Stat. § 15A-1340.13(b) (2016)). “The prior record level of a felony offender is

-3-
STATE V. STANFORD

Opinion of the Court

determined by calculating the sum of the points assigned to each of the offender’s

prior convictions[.]” N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-1340.14(a) (2025).

Under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-1340.14, in relevant part, points are assigned as

follows:

...

(3) For each prior felony Class E, F, or G conviction,
4 points.

(4) For each prior felony Class H or I conviction, 2
points.

(5) For each prior misdemeanor conviction as
defined in this subsection, 1 point. For purposes of
this subsection, misdemeanor is defined as any
Class A1 and Class 1 nontraffic misdemeanor
offense, impaired driving (G.S. 20-138.1), impaired
driving in a commercial vehicle (G.S. 20-138.2), and
misdemeanor death by vehicle (G.S. 20-141.4(a2)),
but not any other misdemeanor traffic offense under
Chapter 20 of the General Statutes.

(6) If all the elements of the present offense are
included in any prior offense for which the offender
was convicted, whether or not the prior offense or
offenses were used in determining prior record level,
1 point.

Also, “[u]nder the provisions of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-1340.14(f) a prior conviction

may be established by stipulation. The existence of the conviction is an issue of fact.

Defendant is bound on appeal by any stipulation as to the existence of a conviction.”

State v. Fair, 205 N.C. App. 315, 318, 685 S.E.2d 514, 516 (2010) (cleaned up).

-4-
STATE V. STANFORD

Opinion of the Court

The felony convictions underlying Defendant’s habitual felon indictment were:

(1) attempted common law robbery, conviction date of 16 June 2005; (2) felony

possession of marijuana, conviction date of 17 March 2015; (3) and possession of a

stolen firearm, conviction date of 26 June 2019. Defendant posits the trial court

impermissibly counted those three felonies when calculating his PRL, and therefore,

his PRL should be nine points rather than thirteen. Defendant thus argues his PRL

was III, not IV. While Defendant is correct that under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-7.6 (2025),

double counting prior convictions violates the protections against double jeopardy, a

careful review of the record shows the trial court’s calculations were correct.

Although Defendant’s stipulated prior record level worksheet in the record

contains illegible portions and omissions as indicated below by question marks, the

record shows the following calculation is appropriate:

Conviction Offense Points
Offense Case No. Date Class Points Allowed
Possession Stolen Goods 04CR21488 15-Apr-04 Misd 1 1 1
Possession Drug
Paraphernalia 04CR57621 1-Oct-04 Misd 1 1 1
Resist Public Officer 04CR61563 20-May-04 Misd 2 0 0
Att. Common Law Robbery 05CRS? 16-Jun-05 Fel H 2 0
? ? ? ? - -
PDP 07CR35698 12-Jun-07 Misd 1 1 1
AOF 09CR35698 12-Mar-10 Misd 1 1 1
Resist Public Officer ? ? Misd 2 0 0
Driving While Impaired 11CR224143 18-Jul-12 Misd 1 1 1
Resist Public Officer 13CR222690 7-Nov-17 Misd 2 0 0
Possession of Marijuana
(F) 15CRS206223 15-May-15 Fel I 2 0
Resist Public Officer 17CR216321 7-Nov-17 Misd 2 0 0

-5-
STATE V. STANFORD

Opinion of the Court

Possession Firearm by
Felon 18CRS514311 26-Jun-19 Fel G 4 4
Possession Stolen Firearm 18CRS214313 26-Jun-19 Fel H 2 0
Alter Serial Number
Firearm ? ? Fel H 2 -
Communicating Threats 19CR200056 15-Nov-21 Misd 1 1 1
Affray 04CR53895 20-Dec-04 Misd 2 0 0
Resist Public Officer 05CR33560 2-Jun-05 Misd 2 0 0
Interfere Emeregency
Comm. 07CR17670 2-Apr-07 Misd 1 1 1
Injury to Personal
Property ? ? Misd 1 - -
Assault on Female 17CR214608 7-Nov-17 Misd 1 1 1
Point for Same Elements 1 1
TOTAL 21 13

Defendant relies on State v. Lee, 150 N.C. App. 701, 564 S.E.2d 592 (2002) in

support of his position. In Lee, the defendant was improperly sentenced as a PRL III

when his PRL should have been II after adjusting for the felonies used to support his

status as an habitual felon. Id. at 704, 564 S.E.2d at 598–99. This Court reasoned

that although N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-7.1 only requires three prior felony convictions to

support the status of habitual felon, the defendant’s habitual felon indictment listed

five felonies and thus, “the State was precluded from using the same five convictions

to increase” the defendant’s PRL. Id. at 703–04, 564 S.E.2d at 598. In reversing and

remanding the defendant’s sentence, this Court ordered none of those five felonies

used to support habitual felon status may also be used to increase the defendant’s

PRL. Id. at 704, 564 S.E.2d at 599. Unlike Lee, our de novo review reveals none of

the felonies used in Defendant’s habitual status indictment entered his PRL calculus.

-6-
STATE V. STANFORD

Opinion of the Court

As discussed and illustrated above, Defendant’s habitual felon indictment

listed three felonies to support his status: attempted common law robbery, possession

of a controlled substance, and possession of a stolen firearm. These felonies are worth

six points. Defendant’s stipulated prior conviction worksheet, before accounting for

the felonies in the habitual felon indictment, contained eight misdemeanors, each

worth one point, and four felonies between class G and I worth ten points. Defendant

does not contest the inclusion of his prior misdemeanor convictions in his PRL and

those convictions were not used to support his status as an habitual felon. The

remaining convictions, the four felonies, were properly allocated.

The record shows Defendant has a class G felony conviction from June 2019

which was not included in the habitual felon indictment. Notably, and different from

Lee, Defendant was convicted of two felonies in the same calendar week in June

2019—possession of a firearm by a felon, the class G felony, and possession of a stolen

firearm, a class H felony. The class H felony supported Defendant’s habitual felon

indictment and the class G felony supported Defendant’s PRL, an allocation not

contrary to the mandate of N.C. Gen. Stat. §§ 14-7.6 and 15A-1340.14(d). State v.

Truesdale, 123 N.C. App. 639, 642, 473 S.E.2d 670, 672 (1996) (“[W]e find nothing in

these statutes to prohibit the court from using one conviction obtained in a single

calendar week to establish habitual felon status and using another separate

conviction obtained the same week to determine prior record level.”). Since these

-7-
STATE V. STANFORD

Opinion of the Court

felonies were properly aggregated, we find no error in the trial court’s sentencing

Defendant a PRL IV.

III. Conclusion

For the above reasons, we find no error in the trial court’s sentencing of

Defendant.

NO ERROR.

Judges STROUD and FREEMAN concur.

Report per Rule 30(e).

-8-