State v. Goode

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

State v. Goode

191 S.E.2d 241, 16 N.C. App. 188, 1972 N.C. App. LEXIS 1673

CourtCourt of Appeals of North Carolina

DecidedSeptember 20, 1972

Docket7220SC606

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 191 S.E.2d 241 (State v. Goode) 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. Goode, 191 S.E.2d 241, 16 N.C. App. 188, 1972 N.C. App. LEXIS 1673 (N.C. Ct. App. 1972).

Pincite

Opinion

*189 VAUGHN, Judge.

Defendant contends that the solicitor’s announcement that a nolle prosequi was being entered in other cases may have resulted in the imposition of a more severe sentence than would have otherwise been imposed.

It has long been the accepted rule in North Carolina that within the limits of the sentence authorized by law, the character and the extent of the punishment imposed is within the discretion of the trial court and is subject to review only in cases of gross abuse. State v. Sudderth, 184 N.C. 753, 114 S.E. 828. It is not an abuse of discretion for the trial judge to inquire, within reason, into matters outside the evidence relating to the offense when determining what punishment should be imposed after accepting a plea of guilty. The court may inquire into, among other things, the habits, the propensities and the record of the person about to be sentenced. State v. Cooper, 238 N.C. 241, 77 S.E. 2d 695; State v. Hullender, 8 N.C. App. 41, 173 S.E. 2d 581.

Defendant pleaded guilty to an offense codified under G.S. 14-54, for which punishment by a fine or by imprisonment for a period up to ten years or by both is authorized by G.S. 14-2. The sentence he received is considerably less than that authorized by statute. The record in this case reveals no abuse of discretion. The judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.

Judges Parker and Graham concur.

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

*189 VAUGHN, Judge.

Defendant contends that the solicitor’s announcement that a nolle prosequi was being entered in other cases may have resulted in the imposition of a more severe sentence than would have otherwise been imposed.

It has long been the accepted rule in North Carolina that within the limits of the sentence authorized by law, the character and the extent of the punishment imposed is within the discretion of the trial court and is subject to review only in cases of gross abuse. State v. Sudderth, 184 N.C. 753, 114 S.E. 828. It is not an abuse of discretion for the trial judge to inquire, within reason, into matters outside the evidence relating to the offense when determining what punishment should be imposed after accepting a plea of guilty. The court may inquire into, among other things, the habits, the propensities and the record of the person about to be sentenced. State v. Cooper, 238 N.C. 241, 77 S.E. 2d 695; State v. Hullender, 8 N.C. App. 41, 173 S.E. 2d 581.

Defendant pleaded guilty to an offense codified under G.S. 14-54, for which punishment by a fine or by imprisonment for a period up to ten years or by both is authorized by G.S. 14-2. The sentence he received is considerably less than that authorized by statute. The record in this case reveals no abuse of discretion. The judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.

Judges Parker and Graham concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

191 S.E.2d 241, 16 N.C. App. 188, 1972 N.C. App. LEXIS 1673, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-goode-ncctapp-1972.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack