State v. Baugh

Supreme Court of North Carolina

State v. Baugh

150 S.E.2d 437, 268 N.C. 294, 1966 N.C. LEXIS 1186

CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina

DecidedOctober 12, 1966

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 150 S.E.2d 437 (State v. Baugh) 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

State v. Baugh, 150 S.E.2d 437, 268 N.C. 294, 1966 N.C. LEXIS 1186 (N.C. 1966).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Notwithstanding the failure of the defendant to assign any ruling or action of the trial court as error, we have carefully examined the entire record and find therein no error of law. There is no suggestion in the record that the defendant, who was represented by counsel, did not understand the charge against him, the nature and effect of his plea of guilty and the maximum sentence which might lawfully be imposed if he entered such plea. It clearly appears from the record that he entered the plea of guilty to the offense charged voluntarily, without threat or inducement, and with full understanding of its effect and possible consequences. The sentence imposed does not exceed the maximum authorized by the statute. G.S. 14-87. The judgment of the court below is, therefore, free from error of law. If the defendant believes that the punishment imposed is unduly severe in fact, his recourse is to seek action by the Board of Paroles or other exercise of the power of executive clemency.

No error.

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

Per Curiam.

Notwithstanding the failure of the defendant to assign any ruling or action of the trial court as error, we have carefully examined the entire record and find therein no error of law. There is no suggestion in the record that the defendant, who was represented by counsel, did not understand the charge against him, the nature and effect of his plea of guilty and the maximum sentence which might lawfully be imposed if he entered such plea. It clearly appears from the record that he entered the plea of guilty to the offense charged voluntarily, without threat or inducement, and with full understanding of its effect and possible consequences. The sentence imposed does not exceed the maximum authorized by the statute. G.S. 14-87. The judgment of the court below is, therefore, free from error of law. If the defendant believes that the punishment imposed is unduly severe in fact, his recourse is to seek action by the Board of Paroles or other exercise of the power of executive clemency.

No error.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

150 S.E.2d 437, 268 N.C. 294, 1966 N.C. LEXIS 1186, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-baugh-nc-1966.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack