State v. Chapman

162 S.E.2d 142, 1 N.C. App. 622, 1968 N.C. App. LEXIS 1156
Court of Appeals of North Carolina·Decided July 10, 1968·No. 68SC222·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

*623 Britt, J.

Defendant’s sole assignment of error is that the court erred in imposing an active sentence of two years in the breaking and entering case and an additional two years active sentence in the escape case. He contends that said sentences amount to cruel, unusual, and excessive punishment.

The assignment of error is without merit and is overruled. For many years, it has been held in this jurisdiction that a sentence within the statutory limits is not excessive nor is it cruel and unusual punishment. State v. Parrish, 273 N.C. 477, 160 S.E. 2d 153; State v. Bethea, 272 N.C. 521, 158 S.E. 2d 591; State v. Faison, 272 N.C. 146, 157 S.E. 2d 664. See also State v. Bruce, 268 N.C. 174, 150 S.E. 2d 216.

The record fails to show that defendant at any time in the trial court raised any constitutional question, either state or federal, relative to the sentences imposed. Before this Court passes on constitutional questions, they should be raised and passed upon first by the trial court. State v. Jelly, et al., 251 N.C. 177, 111 S.E. 2d 1.

The sentences imposed by Judge Snepp were within the statutory limits and did not violate any provision of the Federal or State Constitutions.

The judgments of the Superior Court are

Affirmed.

Campbell and Morris, JJ., concur.

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

State v. Chapman, 162 S.E.2d 142, 1 N.C. App. 622, 1968 N.C. App. LEXIS 1156 (N.C. Ct. App. 1968).

162 S.E.2d 142 (State v. Chapman) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

State v. Powell
169 S.E.2d 210 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1969)
State v. Kotofsky
166 S.E.2d 484 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1969)
Carolina v. Kelly
164 S.E.2d 22 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1968)