State v. Campbell

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

State v. Campbell

163 S.E.2d 78, 2 N.C. App. 406, 1968 N.C. App. LEXIS 941

CourtCourt of Appeals of North Carolina

DecidedSeptember 18, 1968

DocketNo. 6822SC307

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 163 S.E.2d 78 (State v. Campbell) 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. Campbell, 163 S.E.2d 78, 2 N.C. App. 406, 1968 N.C. App. LEXIS 941 (N.C. Ct. App. 1968).

Pincite

Opinion

Britt, J.

Following his conviction in Superior Court, defendant requested that an attorney other than his trial attorney be assigned to represent him on appeal to this Court. Attorney L. Hugh West, Jr., was appointed and proceeded to perfect the appeal; however, said attorney states in the record that he has carefully read the record and the law with respect thereto and can find nothing in the record which he can in good faith assign as error. At the same time, he requests that this Court carefully review-the record and grant the defendant a new trial if reversible error is discovered.

Accordingly we- have carefully reviewed the entire record in this case and find that the defendant was given a fair trial, free from prejudicial error, and that the sentences imposed were within statu[407]*407tory limits. State v. Hopper, 271 N.C. 464, 156 S.E. 2d 857; State v. Elliott, 269 N.C. 683, 153 S.E. 2d 330.

The judgment of the Superior Court is Affirmed.

BrocK and Parker, JJ., concur.

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

Britt, J.

Following his conviction in Superior Court, defendant requested that an attorney other than his trial attorney be assigned to represent him on appeal to this Court. Attorney L. Hugh West, Jr., was appointed and proceeded to perfect the appeal; however, said attorney states in the record that he has carefully read the record and the law with respect thereto and can find nothing in the record which he can in good faith assign as error. At the same time, he requests that this Court carefully review-the record and grant the defendant a new trial if reversible error is discovered.

Accordingly we- have carefully reviewed the entire record in this case and find that the defendant was given a fair trial, free from prejudicial error, and that the sentences imposed were within statu[407]*407tory limits. State v. Hopper, 271 N.C. 464, 156 S.E. 2d 857; State v. Elliott, 269 N.C. 683, 153 S.E. 2d 330.

The judgment of the Superior Court is Affirmed.

BrocK and Parker, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

163 S.E.2d 78, 2 N.C. App. 406, 1968 N.C. App. LEXIS 941, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-campbell-ncctapp-1968.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack