State v. Bryant

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

State v. Bryant

192 S.E.2d 642, 16 N.C. App. 647, 1972 N.C. App. LEXIS 1794

CourtCourt of Appeals of North Carolina

DecidedNovember 22, 1972

DocketNo. 7228SC629

StatusPublished

This text of 192 S.E.2d 642 (State v. Bryant) 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. Bryant, 192 S.E.2d 642, 16 N.C. App. 647, 1972 N.C. App. LEXIS 1794 (N.C. Ct. App. 1972).

Pincite

Opinion

BRITT, Judge.

Defendant’s sole assignment of error is based on his exception to the entry of the judgment, therefore, the only question presented is whether error appears on the face of the record. State v. Martin, 10 N.C. App. 181, 178 S.E. 2d 32 (1970).

A careful review of the record reveals no error. The bill of indictment is proper in form; the defendant’s plea of guilty to a less degree of the offense charged in the indictment against him is authorized by statute; State v. Woody, 271 N.C. 544, 157 S.E. 2d 108 (1967) ; defendant was represented by an experienced attorney; the court, following a careful inquiry, determined that defendant’s guilty plea was freely, understanding^, and voluntarily entered; and the sentence imposed is well within the limits provided by statute; G.S. 14-18.

The judgment appealed from is

Affirmed.

Chief Judge Mallard and Judge Brock concur.

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

BRITT, Judge.

Defendant’s sole assignment of error is based on his exception to the entry of the judgment, therefore, the only question presented is whether error appears on the face of the record. State v. Martin, 10 N.C. App. 181, 178 S.E. 2d 32 (1970).

A careful review of the record reveals no error. The bill of indictment is proper in form; the defendant’s plea of guilty to a less degree of the offense charged in the indictment against him is authorized by statute; State v. Woody, 271 N.C. 544, 157 S.E. 2d 108 (1967) ; defendant was represented by an experienced attorney; the court, following a careful inquiry, determined that defendant’s guilty plea was freely, understanding^, and voluntarily entered; and the sentence imposed is well within the limits provided by statute; G.S. 14-18.

The judgment appealed from is

Affirmed.

Chief Judge Mallard and Judge Brock concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

192 S.E.2d 642, 16 N.C. App. 647, 1972 N.C. App. LEXIS 1794, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-bryant-ncctapp-1972.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack