State v. Draughn

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

State v. Draughn

192 S.E.2d 32, 16 N.C. App. 426, 1972 N.C. App. LEXIS 1726

CourtCourt of Appeals of North Carolina

DecidedOctober 25, 1972

DocketNo. 7212SC727

StatusPublished

This text of 192 S.E.2d 32 (State v. Draughn) 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. Draughn, 192 S.E.2d 32, 16 N.C. App. 426, 1972 N.C. App. LEXIS 1726 (N.C. Ct. App. 1972).

Pincite

Opinion

PARKER, Judge.

Since defendant pleaded guilty, this appeal presents for review only the question whether error appears on the face of the record proper. State v. Roberts, 279 N.C. 500, 183 S.E. 2d [427]*427647. We have carefully examined the record, and no error appears. The bill of indictment was in all respects regular; the court was properly organized; the trial judge properly examined defendant before accepting his plea and found that the plea of guilty was freely, understanding and voluntarily made; there was plenary evidence to support these findings; and the sentence imposed was within statutory limits.

After careful review of the record, we find

No error.

Judges Campbell and Morris concur.

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

PARKER, Judge.

Since defendant pleaded guilty, this appeal presents for review only the question whether error appears on the face of the record proper. State v. Roberts, 279 N.C. 500, 183 S.E. 2d [427]*427647. We have carefully examined the record, and no error appears. The bill of indictment was in all respects regular; the court was properly organized; the trial judge properly examined defendant before accepting his plea and found that the plea of guilty was freely, understanding and voluntarily made; there was plenary evidence to support these findings; and the sentence imposed was within statutory limits.

After careful review of the record, we find

No error.

Judges Campbell and Morris concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

192 S.E.2d 32, 16 N.C. App. 426, 1972 N.C. App. LEXIS 1726, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-draughn-ncctapp-1972.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack