State v. Cleaves

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

State v. Cleaves

166 S.E.2d 861, 4 N.C. App. 506, 1969 N.C. App. LEXIS 1535

CourtCourt of Appeals of North Carolina

DecidedApril 30, 1969

Docket6926SC108

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 166 S.E.2d 861 (State v. Cleaves) 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. Cleaves, 166 S.E.2d 861, 4 N.C. App. 506, 1969 N.C. App. LEXIS 1535 (N.C. Ct. App. 1969).

Pincite

Opinion

*508 Parker, J.

When a defendant voluntarily pleads guilty to a charge of crime, the only questions presented on appeal are whether any error appears upon the face of the record proper and whether the sentences imposed were in excess of statutory limits. State v. Caldwell, 269 N.C. 521, 153 S.E. 2d 34; State v. Darnell, 266 N.C. 640, 146 S.E. 2d 800.

The sole assignment of error in the record is that the punishment imposed was “cruel and unusual under the law and facts of this case.” The assignment is without merit. It is firmly established in our jurisprudence that when the punishment imposed does not exceed the limits fixed by statute, it cannot be considered cruel and unusual in a constitutional sense. State v. Bruce, 268 N.C. 174, 150 S.E. 2d 216; State v. Mosteller, 3 N.C. App. 67, 164 S.E. 2d 27. The sentences imposed upon appellant here did not exceed statutory limits. G.S. 14-3; G.S. 14-107. The court’s authority to provide that such sentences shall run consecutively is also well established. State v. Dawson, 268 N.C. 603, 151 S.E. 2d 203.

No error appears upon the face of this record; the punishment was within limits permitted by law. We find

No error.

Mallard, C.J., and Britt, J., concur.

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

*508 Parker, J.

When a defendant voluntarily pleads guilty to a charge of crime, the only questions presented on appeal are whether any error appears upon the face of the record proper and whether the sentences imposed were in excess of statutory limits. State v. Caldwell, 269 N.C. 521, 153 S.E. 2d 34; State v. Darnell, 266 N.C. 640, 146 S.E. 2d 800.

The sole assignment of error in the record is that the punishment imposed was “cruel and unusual under the law and facts of this case.” The assignment is without merit. It is firmly established in our jurisprudence that when the punishment imposed does not exceed the limits fixed by statute, it cannot be considered cruel and unusual in a constitutional sense. State v. Bruce, 268 N.C. 174, 150 S.E. 2d 216; State v. Mosteller, 3 N.C. App. 67, 164 S.E. 2d 27. The sentences imposed upon appellant here did not exceed statutory limits. G.S. 14-3; G.S. 14-107. The court’s authority to provide that such sentences shall run consecutively is also well established. State v. Dawson, 268 N.C. 603, 151 S.E. 2d 203.

No error appears upon the face of this record; the punishment was within limits permitted by law. We find

No error.

Mallard, C.J., and Britt, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

166 S.E.2d 861, 4 N.C. App. 506, 1969 N.C. App. LEXIS 1535, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-cleaves-ncctapp-1969.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack