State v. Hopper

Supreme Court of North Carolina

State v. Hopper

156 S.E.2d 857, 271 N.C. 464, 1967 N.C. LEXIS 1223

CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina

DecidedSeptember 27, 1967

Docket165

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 156 S.E.2d 857 (State v. Hopper) 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. Hopper, 156 S.E.2d 857, 271 N.C. 464, 1967 N.C. LEXIS 1223 (N.C. 1967).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The defendant’s only assignment of error is that the prison sentences imposed constituted cruel and unusual punishment. Upon his pleas of guilty, he could have been given a total of forty years’ imprisonment for the forgery and uttering of the two checks. G.S. 14-119 and G.S. 14-120.

With a record of two felony convictions in which, so far as the *465 present record shows, he received no active prison sentences, he could hardly hope for further slap-on-the-wrist treatment by the Court. The sentences pronounced herein, while severe, amount to only about a third of the time of imprisonment permissible under the defendant’s pleas of guilty. We have held, frequently and repeatedly, that this does not constitute cruel and unusual punishment. State v. Elliott, 269 N.C. 683, 153 S.E. 2d 330, and many cases there cited.

This being the only ground upon which the defendant seeks relief, it is hereby denied.

Affirmed.

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

Per Curiam.

The defendant’s only assignment of error is that the prison sentences imposed constituted cruel and unusual punishment. Upon his pleas of guilty, he could have been given a total of forty years’ imprisonment for the forgery and uttering of the two checks. G.S. 14-119 and G.S. 14-120.

With a record of two felony convictions in which, so far as the *465 present record shows, he received no active prison sentences, he could hardly hope for further slap-on-the-wrist treatment by the Court. The sentences pronounced herein, while severe, amount to only about a third of the time of imprisonment permissible under the defendant’s pleas of guilty. We have held, frequently and repeatedly, that this does not constitute cruel and unusual punishment. State v. Elliott, 269 N.C. 683, 153 S.E. 2d 330, and many cases there cited.

This being the only ground upon which the defendant seeks relief, it is hereby denied.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

156 S.E.2d 857, 271 N.C. 464, 1967 N.C. LEXIS 1223, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-hopper-nc-1967.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack