State v. Collins

102 S.E.2d 228, 247 N.C. 752, 1958 N.C. LEXIS 312
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in State v. Collins. Read the opinion of the Court — 247 N.C. 244
Supreme Court of North Carolina·Decided February 26, 1958·Published

Opinion

Per Curiam.

In the trial below the defendant made no motion to quash the bill of indictment, entered no plea in abatement, nor a plea of double jeopardy, nor was any motion interposed in arrest of judgment.

Present counsel for the defendant admit in their brief that apparently no appeal entries were entered at the time the judgment was imposed in the Superior Court, and that they have been unable to secure an agreement with the Solicitor by whieh a case on appeal, containing the evidence, could be brought to this Court. Hence, they have only brought up the record proper. Bell v. Nivens, 225 N.C. 35, 33 S.E. 2d 66.

Since the Municipal Recorder’s Court of Ayden and the Superior Court of Pitt County have concurrent jurisdiction of misdemeanors (G.S. 7-64), and there being no evidence in the record tending to show that the offenses referred to in the warrant and the bill of indictment are the same, the judgment will be upheld on authority of S. v. Suddreth, 223 N.C. 610, 27 S.E. 2d 623.

Affirmed.

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

State v. Collins, 102 S.E.2d 228, 247 N.C. 752, 1958 N.C. LEXIS 312 (N.C. 1958).

102 S.E.2d 228 (State v. Collins) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Bell v. . Nivens
33 S.E.2d 66 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1945)
State v. . Suddreth
27 S.E.2d 623 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1943)