State v. Darnell

Supreme Court of North Carolina

State v. Darnell

146 S.E.2d 800, 266 N.C. 640, 1966 N.C. LEXIS 1406

CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina

DecidedMarch 2, 1966

Docket85

StatusPublished

Cited by18 cases

This text of 146 S.E.2d 800 (State v. Darnell) 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. Darnell, 146 S.E.2d 800, 266 N.C. 640, 1966 N.C. LEXIS 1406 (N.C. 1966).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Cubiam.

“The right of appeal is unlimited in the courts of North Carolina. . . .” State v. Beasley, 226 N.C. 577, 579, 39 S.E. 2d 605, 606; G.S. 15-180; State v. Grundler and State v. Jelly, 251 N.C. 177, 111 S.E. 2d 1. This case is a fair example of the manner in which that unlimited right is now being perverted at the whim of those who have nothing to lose. An indigent defendant has only to say, “I appeal,” and the county is required to furnish him with counsel, “transcript and records required for an adequate and effective appellate review.” G.S. 15-4.1.

This record contains no assignment of error, but the appeal itself is an exception to the judgment. State v. Sloan, 238 N.C. 672, 78 S.E. 2d 738. When a defendant voluntarily pleads guilty to a charge of crime, this Court may consider only questions of law inherent in the judgment itself. The only questions presented here are whether any error appears upon the face of the record proper, State *642 v. Jernigan, 255 N.C. 732, 122 S.E. 2d 711; State v. Wallace, 251 N.C. 378, 111 S.E. 2d 714, and whether the sentence was in excess of the statutory limit. Should the latter situation appear, the case will be remanded for the entry of a proper judgment. State v. Alston, 264 N.C. 398, 141 S.E. 2d 793; State v. Templeton, 237 N.C. 440, 75 S.E. 2d 243.

No error appears upon the face of this record; the punishment was one-half of the maximum permitted by law. The judgment of the Superior Court is

Affirmed.

MooRE, J., not sitting.

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

Per Cubiam.

“The right of appeal is unlimited in the courts of North Carolina. . . .” State v. Beasley, 226 N.C. 577, 579, 39 S.E. 2d 605, 606; G.S. 15-180; State v. Grundler and State v. Jelly, 251 N.C. 177, 111 S.E. 2d 1. This case is a fair example of the manner in which that unlimited right is now being perverted at the whim of those who have nothing to lose. An indigent defendant has only to say, “I appeal,” and the county is required to furnish him with counsel, “transcript and records required for an adequate and effective appellate review.” G.S. 15-4.1.

This record contains no assignment of error, but the appeal itself is an exception to the judgment. State v. Sloan, 238 N.C. 672, 78 S.E. 2d 738. When a defendant voluntarily pleads guilty to a charge of crime, this Court may consider only questions of law inherent in the judgment itself. The only questions presented here are whether any error appears upon the face of the record proper, State *642 v. Jernigan, 255 N.C. 732, 122 S.E. 2d 711; State v. Wallace, 251 N.C. 378, 111 S.E. 2d 714, and whether the sentence was in excess of the statutory limit. Should the latter situation appear, the case will be remanded for the entry of a proper judgment. State v. Alston, 264 N.C. 398, 141 S.E. 2d 793; State v. Templeton, 237 N.C. 440, 75 S.E. 2d 243.

No error appears upon the face of this record; the punishment was one-half of the maximum permitted by law. The judgment of the Superior Court is

Affirmed.

MooRE, J., not sitting.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

146 S.E.2d 800, 266 N.C. 640, 1966 N.C. LEXIS 1406, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-darnell-nc-1966.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack