Stokes and Bondurant involved the especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel aggravating circumstance. See State v. Spruill, 338 N.C. 612, 664, 452 S.E.2d 279, 307 (1994), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 834, 133 L. Ed. 2d 63 (1995). The case at hand is distinguishable from Stokes in that the Court in Stokes emphasized that the record was devoid of evidence suggesting that the defendant was the ringleader. Stokes, 319 N.C. at 21, 352 S.E.2d at 664. In this case defendant acted on his own and is solely responsible for his crime. Furthermore, the defendant in Stokes was only seventeen years old at the time of the crime, id.; whereas, defendant in this case was twenty years old at the time of the crime. We have previously distinguished Stokes on this basis. Robinson, 342 N.C. at 89, 463 S.E.2d at 227 (<HOLDING>). This case also differs substantially from
holding inference is warranted when a 67 year old is replaced by a 59 year old holding that threeyear difference from 49 to 46 years old was insufficient to establish fourth requirement of prima facie case holding that a change between old and new rules was fundamental to a degree that impacts our jurisdiction over the plaintiffs challenges to the old rules holding two prior convictions more than ten years old admissible where disorderlypersons offenses bridged the gap holding stokes distinguishable where the defendant was twentyone years old