State v. . Hoggard

103 S.E. 891, 180 N.C. 678, 1920 N.C. LEXIS 179
CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina
DecidedSeptember 22, 1920
StatusPublished
Cited by17 cases

This text of 103 S.E. 891 (State v. . Hoggard) 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. . Hoggard, 103 S.E. 891, 180 N.C. 678, 1920 N.C. LEXIS 179 (N.C. 1920).

Opinion

*679 BbowN, J.

This was an appeal from a sentence upon a suspended judgment by his Honor, E. H. Cranmer, judge presiding, at July Term, 1920, of the Superior Court of Washington County. The facts upon which such sentence was based are as follows :

The defendant was indicted in two cases for retailing spirituous liquor. By agreement, the defendant plead guilty in case number one, and a fine was imposed upon him. In case number two he pleaded guilty; the prayer for judgment was continued upon payment of costs and the execution of a bond for defendant’s appearance and show that he had not violated the prohibition laws of the State.

The defendant was afterwards indicted for retailing liquor. At July Term, 1920, judgment was prayed upon the suspended judgment, which had been suspended upon good behavior.

The court heard the evidence, and found that the defendant had engaged in the unlawful sale of liquor in violation of the terms of the suspended judgment, and sentenced the defendant to two years on the roads.

The right of a judge to impose sentence upon a judgment suspended upon good behavior is well settled. We said in S. v. Greer, 173 N. C., 759: “When judgment is suspended in a criminal action upon good behavior, or other conditions, the proceedings to ascertain whether the terms have been complied with are addressed to the reasonable discretion of the judge of the court, and do not come within the jury’s province. The findings of the judge, and his judgment upon them, are not reviewable upon appeal unless there is a manifest abuse of such discretion.” S. v. Crook, 115 N. C., 760; S. v. Hilton, 151 N. C., 687; S. v. Everitt, 164 N. C., 399.

Affirmed.

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

Related

State v. Alston
534 S.E.2d 666 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 2000)
State v. Green
225 S.E.2d 170 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1976)
State v. Guffey
116 S.E.2d 148 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1960)
Waters v. Gower
54 S.E.2d 346 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1949)
State v. . Jackson
36 S.E.2d 706 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1946)
State v. . Pelley
20 S.E.2d 850 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1942)
State v. Calcutt
219 N.C. 545 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1941)
Hubbell v. State
285 P. 153 (Wyoming Supreme Court, 1930)
State v. . Edwards
135 S.E. 37 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1926)
Ex Parte Eaton
1925 OK CR 107 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma, 1925)
State v. . Shepherd
122 S.E. 467 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1924)
State v. . Hardin
112 S.E. 593 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1922)
State v. . Strange
111 S.E. 350 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1922)
Antonopoulas v. State
107 S.E. 359 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1921)
Antonopoulas v. State
107 S.E. 156 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1921)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
103 S.E. 891, 180 N.C. 678, 1920 N.C. LEXIS 179, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-hoggard-nc-1920.