State v. . Cockerham

24 N.C. 204
CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina
DecidedJune 5, 1842
StatusPublished
Cited by19 cases

This text of 24 N.C. 204 (State v. . Cockerham) 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. . Cockerham, 24 N.C. 204 (N.C. 1842).

Opinion

Gaston, J.

The time, at which a sentence shall be carried into execution, forms no part of the judgment of the court. The judgment is the penalty of the law, as declared by the court, while the direction, with respect to the time of carryiug it into eifect, is in the nature of an award of execution. In this case the judgment was that the defendant be imprisoned two calendar months; and the words, which follow in the record, “ from and after the 1st of November next,” direct the time of executing the judgment. The entry, indeed, would have been more formal, had the judgment and the mandate for carrying it into effect been separate and distinct, But, however informal, it can be understood, in conformity to the law, as consisting of distinct parts, and therefore ought to be so understood. Upon the defendant appearing in court and his identity not being denied, and it being admitted that the sentence of the court had not been executed, it was proper to make the necessary order for carrying the sentence into execution. There is therefore no error in the order appealed from. This opinion must be certified to the Superior Court of Haywood with the appropriate directions.

Per Curiam, Ordered accordingly,.

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

Related

State v. Watson
812 S.E.2d 392 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 2018)
Commonwealth v. Blair
699 A.2d 738 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1997)
Veit v. Caldwell
400 F. Supp. 700 (E.D. North Carolina, 1975)
People Ex Rel. Ellis v. Babb
107 N.E.2d 793 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1952)
In Re Smith
11 S.E.2d 317 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1940)
People Ex Rel. Kerner v. McKinley
20 N.E.2d 498 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1939)
People Ex Rel. Crews v. Toman
10 N.E.2d 657 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1937)
State v. . McAfee
152 S.E. 391 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1930)
In Re Jennings
267 P. 227 (Idaho Supreme Court, 1928)
Hopkins v. North
135 A. 367 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1926)
Massey v. Cunningham
275 S.W. 737 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1925)
State v. . Vickers
114 S.E. 168 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1922)
Bernstein v. United States
254 F. 967 (Fourth Circuit, 1918)
Ex Parte Alexander
1911 OK CR 63 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma, 1911)
State v. Abbott
70 S.E. 6 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1911)
Ex Parte Eldridge
1910 OK CR 53 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma, 1910)
Ex Parte Ridley
1910 OK CR 5 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma, 1910)
In re McCauley
100 N.W. 1031 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1904)
Miller v. Evans
56 L.R.A. 101 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1901)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
24 N.C. 204, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-cockerham-nc-1842.