In Re Imprisonment of Palmer

Supreme Court of North Carolina

In Re Imprisonment of Palmer

144 S.E.2d 413, 265 N.C. 485, 1965 N.C. LEXIS 1018

CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina

DecidedOctober 20, 1965

Docket370

StatusPublished

Cited by10 cases

This text of 144 S.E.2d 413 (In Re Imprisonment of Palmer) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of North Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

In Re Imprisonment of Palmer, 144 S.E.2d 413, 265 N.C. 485, 1965 N.C. LEXIS 1018 (N.C. 1965).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Direct contempt of court is punishable summarily, and the offended court is only required to “cause the particulars of the offense to be specified on the record.” In re Burton, 257 N.C. 534, 126 S.E. 2d 581; Calyon v. Stutts, 241 N.C. 120, 84 S.E. 2d 822; G.S. 5-5. No appeal shall lie from an order of direct contempt; G.S. 5-2; Luther v. Luther, 234 N.C. 429, 67 S.E. 2d 345. A contemner imprisoned in consequence of a judgment of direct contempt may seek relief by habeas corpus. However, the only question open to inquiry at the habeas corpus hearing is whether, on the record, the court which imposed the sentence had jurisdiction and acted within its lawful authority. In re Renfrow, 247 N.C. 55, 100 S.E. 2d 315; State v. Hooker, 183 N.C. 763, 111 S.E. 351. The facts found by the committing court are binding on the judge at the habeas corpus hearing, the only question being whether the judgment was warranted by law and within the jurisdiction of the court. In re Adams, 218 N.C. 379, 11 S.E. 2d 163. In habeas corpus proceedings, the court is not permitted to act as one of errors and appeals; to justify relief the judgment of imprisonment must be void as distinguished from erroneous. State v. Edwards, 192 N.C. 321, 135 S.E. 37; In re Burton, supra. The court hearing the matter on habeas corpus may not try the cause de novo, hear testimony of witnesses, or find facts in conflict with those found by the judge who imposed the sentence. In the habeas corpus proceeding the judge merely reviews the record and determines whether the court which imposed sentence had jurisdiction and whether the facts found and specified on the record are sufficient to support the imposition of sentence.

*487 It is clear that the judge below misconceived the scope of his duty and authority. He was bound by the facts found by Judge Beal (but not the factual conclusions). He could not hear testimony of witnesses or consider evidence dehors the record, and therefrom find independent facts. He could only determine whether the facts found by Judge Beal are sufficient to support the judgment. In re Croom, 175 N.C. 455, 95 S.E. 903.

A habeas corpus proceeding is a collateral attack on a judgment of imprisonment, and an order in the proceeding discharging the prisoner is not equivalent to a verdict of not guilty. No appeal lies from an order made in a habeas corpus proceeding (except in cases involving custody of children) but such order may be reviewed on, certiorari. State v. Edwards, 192 N.C. 321, 135 S.E. 37. Whether certiorari will be granted rests in the sound discretion of the Court. In re McCade, 183 N.C. 242, 111 S.E. 3; In re Croom, supra.

After a careful examination of the record, this Court, in the exercise of its discretion, declines to issue writ of certiorari.

Petition denied.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Per Curiam.

Direct contempt of court is punishable summarily, and the offended court is only required to “cause the particulars of the offense to be specified on the record.” In re Burton, 257 N.C. 534, 126 S.E. 2d 581; Calyon v. Stutts, 241 N.C. 120, 84 S.E. 2d 822; G.S. 5-5. No appeal shall lie from an order of direct contempt; G.S. 5-2; Luther v. Luther, 234 N.C. 429, 67 S.E. 2d 345. A contemner imprisoned in consequence of a judgment of direct contempt may seek relief by habeas corpus. However, the only question open to inquiry at the habeas corpus hearing is whether, on the record, the court which imposed the sentence had jurisdiction and acted within its lawful authority. In re Renfrow, 247 N.C. 55, 100 S.E. 2d 315; State v. Hooker, 183 N.C. 763, 111 S.E. 351. The facts found by the committing court are binding on the judge at the habeas corpus hearing, the only question being whether the judgment was warranted by law and within the jurisdiction of the court. In re Adams, 218 N.C. 379, 11 S.E. 2d 163. In habeas corpus proceedings, the court is not permitted to act as one of errors and appeals; to justify relief the judgment of imprisonment must be void as distinguished from erroneous. State v. Edwards, 192 N.C. 321, 135 S.E. 37; In re Burton, supra. The court hearing the matter on habeas corpus may not try the cause de novo, hear testimony of witnesses, or find facts in conflict with those found by the judge who imposed the sentence. In the habeas corpus proceeding the judge merely reviews the record and determines whether the court which imposed sentence had jurisdiction and whether the facts found and specified on the record are sufficient to support the imposition of sentence.

*487 It is clear that the judge below misconceived the scope of his duty and authority. He was bound by the facts found by Judge Beal (but not the factual conclusions). He could not hear testimony of witnesses or consider evidence dehors the record, and therefrom find independent facts. He could only determine whether the facts found by Judge Beal are sufficient to support the judgment. In re Croom, 175 N.C. 455, 95 S.E. 903.

A habeas corpus proceeding is a collateral attack on a judgment of imprisonment, and an order in the proceeding discharging the prisoner is not equivalent to a verdict of not guilty. No appeal lies from an order made in a habeas corpus proceeding (except in cases involving custody of children) but such order may be reviewed on, certiorari. State v. Edwards, 192 N.C. 321, 135 S.E. 37. Whether certiorari will be granted rests in the sound discretion of the Court. In re McCade, 183 N.C. 242, 111 S.E. 3; In re Croom, supra.

After a careful examination of the record, this Court, in the exercise of its discretion, declines to issue writ of certiorari.

Petition denied.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

144 S.E.2d 413, 265 N.C. 485, 1965 N.C. LEXIS 1018, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-imprisonment-of-palmer-nc-1965.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack