An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute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.
NO. COA14-532
NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS
Filed: 21 October 2014
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
v. Gaston County
Nos. 9 CRS 57022
10 CRS 2984, 8273
TRAVIS KENYEL SANDERS
Appeal by defendant from judgments entered 9 January 2014,
nunc pro tunc 22 July 2010, by Judge Jesse B. Caldwell, III, in
Gaston County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 22
September 2014.
Attorney General Roy Cooper, by Assistant Attorney General
Tiffany Y. Lucas, for the State.
James N. Freeman, Jr., P.C., by James N. Freeman, Jr., for
defendant-appellant.
McCULLOUGH, Judge.
On 21 July 2010, a jury found defendant guilty of one count
each of sale of cocaine and delivery of cocaine, of two counts
of possession of cocaine, and of attaining habitual felon
status. The trial court consolidated his offenses into two
judgments and sentenced him as an habitual felon to consecutive
-2-
active prison terms of 100 to 129 months. On direct appeal, we
remanded to the trial court for resentencing “upon a single
conviction for sale or delivery of cocaine” and “upon one
conviction for possession of cocaine[.]” State v. Sanders, 215
N.C. App. 393, 716 S.E.2d 88 (2011) (unpublished), cert. granted
and remanded, 367 N.C. 207, __ S.E.2d __ (2013) (unpublished).
On remand, the trial court again sentenced defendant to two
consecutive terms of 100 to 129 months’ imprisonment. Defendant
now appeals from these judgments.
Defendant claims the trial court erred in failing to find
two mitigating factors at resentencing based on his
uncontroverted evidence thereof. It is well-established,
however, that a court need not enter written findings of
aggravating and mitigating factors when imposing a sentence
within the presumptive range. State v. James, __ N.C. App. __,
__, 738 S.E.2d 420, 426 (2013) (quoting State v. Allah, 168 N.C.
App. 190, 197, 607 S.E.2d 311, 316 (2005)). “As defendant was
sentenced . . . in the presumptive range, the trial court did
not err in failing to make findings as to mitigating factors.”
Allah, 168 N.C. App. at 197, 607 S.E.2d at 316.
No error.
Judges CALABRIA and GEER concur.
-3-
Report per Rule 30(e).