State v. Brooks

Supreme Court of North Carolina

State v. Brooks

156 S.E.2d 676, 271 N.C. 462, 1967 N.C. LEXIS 1222

DecidedSeptember 27, 1967

StatusPublished

This text of 156 S.E.2d 676 (State v. Brooks) 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. Brooks, 156 S.E.2d 676, 271 N.C. 462, 1967 N.C. LEXIS 1222 (N.C. 1967).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Defendant appeals because the two sentences,, which the court specified should run concurrently, do not specify the same place of confinement. He argues that “‘[a] sentence in the penitentiary and one adjudging that a man shall spend a certain time in the county jail cannot be served out concurrently.’ Story v. State, 27 S.W. 2d 204.” In re Smith, 235 N.C. 169, 172, 69 S.E. 2d 174, 176; accord, In re Bentley, 240 N.C. 112, 81 S.E. 2d 206. Defendant contends that this case should be remanded to the superior Court for “proper judgment” in order to effectuate the judge’s stated intention that the two sentences run concurrently.

Defendant’s apprehension that he might be required to serve an additional 12 months after the completion of his 3-4-year sentence in the State’s prison is unfounded. After the decisions in In re Smith and In re Bentley, supra, the General Assembly of North Carolina at its 1955 Regular Session enacted G.S.-15-6.2:

“When by a judgment of a court or by operation of law a prison sentence runs concurrently with any other sentence á prisoner shall not be required to serve any additional time in prison solely because-the concurrent sentences are for different grades of offenses or that it is required that they be served in different places of confinement.”

As a result of this statute, defendant’s two sentences run concurrently. When he has completed the sentence in the State’s prison, defendant will be entitled to his release..

No error.

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

Per Curiam.

Defendant appeals because the two sentences,, which the court specified should run concurrently, do not specify the same place of confinement. He argues that “‘[a] sentence in the penitentiary and one adjudging that a man shall spend a certain time in the county jail cannot be served out concurrently.’ Story v. State, 27 S.W. 2d 204.” In re Smith, 235 N.C. 169, 172, 69 S.E. 2d 174, 176; accord, In re Bentley, 240 N.C. 112, 81 S.E. 2d 206. Defendant contends that this case should be remanded to the superior Court for “proper judgment” in order to effectuate the judge’s stated intention that the two sentences run concurrently.

Defendant’s apprehension that he might be required to serve an additional 12 months after the completion of his 3-4-year sentence in the State’s prison is unfounded. After the decisions in In re Smith and In re Bentley, supra, the General Assembly of North Carolina at its 1955 Regular Session enacted G.S.-15-6.2:

“When by a judgment of a court or by operation of law a prison sentence runs concurrently with any other sentence á prisoner shall not be required to serve any additional time in prison solely because-the concurrent sentences are for different grades of offenses or that it is required that they be served in different places of confinement.”

As a result of this statute, defendant’s two sentences run concurrently. When he has completed the sentence in the State’s prison, defendant will be entitled to his release..

No error.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

156 S.E.2d 676, 271 N.C. 462, 1967 N.C. LEXIS 1222, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-brooks-nc-1967.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack