State v. Brady

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

State v. Brady

196 S.E.2d 813, 18 N.C. App. 325, 1973 N.C. App. LEXIS 1854

CourtCourt of Appeals of North Carolina

DecidedMay 23, 1973

DocketNo. 7318SC355

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 196 S.E.2d 813 (State v. Brady) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals 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. Brady, 196 S.E.2d 813, 18 N.C. App. 325, 1973 N.C. App. LEXIS 1854 (N.C. Ct. App. 1973).

Pincite

Opinion

BRITT, Judge.

The only question presented on appeal relates to whether the court erred in imposing sentences.

Defendant contends that when cases are consolidated for judgment, a court is without authority to impose a sentence in excess of the maximum statutory penalty applicable to any of the offenses for which there has. been a conviction or guilty plea. Therefore, defendant argues that since he was found guilty of (1) felonious breaking and entering and' (2) felonious larceny, in violation of G.S. 14-54 and G.S. 14-70, each of said offenses being punishable by imprisonment for not more than ten years, the court erred in imposing a sentence of not less than twenty-five nor more than thirty' years. We find no merit in defendant’s contention.

Our Supreme Court has held that where cases have been consolidated for judgment, the punishment may not exceed that permitted on the count carrying the greatest punishment. State v. McCrowe, 272 N.C. 523, 158 S.E. 2d 337 (1968); State v. Tolley, 271 N.C. 459, 156 S.E. 2d 858 (1967). By virtue of G.S. 14-89.1, the judge in his discretion may impose a prison sentence of from ten years to life for safecracking.

The sentence imposed in the instant case does not exceed the greatest statutory penalty applicable to any of the charges upon which defendant was convicted, therefore, we find

No error.

Judges Brock and Baley concur.

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

BRITT, Judge.

The only question presented on appeal relates to whether the court erred in imposing sentences.

Defendant contends that when cases are consolidated for judgment, a court is without authority to impose a sentence in excess of the maximum statutory penalty applicable to any of the offenses for which there has. been a conviction or guilty plea. Therefore, defendant argues that since he was found guilty of (1) felonious breaking and entering and' (2) felonious larceny, in violation of G.S. 14-54 and G.S. 14-70, each of said offenses being punishable by imprisonment for not more than ten years, the court erred in imposing a sentence of not less than twenty-five nor more than thirty' years. We find no merit in defendant’s contention.

Our Supreme Court has held that where cases have been consolidated for judgment, the punishment may not exceed that permitted on the count carrying the greatest punishment. State v. McCrowe, 272 N.C. 523, 158 S.E. 2d 337 (1968); State v. Tolley, 271 N.C. 459, 156 S.E. 2d 858 (1967). By virtue of G.S. 14-89.1, the judge in his discretion may impose a prison sentence of from ten years to life for safecracking.

The sentence imposed in the instant case does not exceed the greatest statutory penalty applicable to any of the charges upon which defendant was convicted, therefore, we find

No error.

Judges Brock and Baley concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

196 S.E.2d 813, 18 N.C. App. 325, 1973 N.C. App. LEXIS 1854, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-brady-ncctapp-1973.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack