State v. Johnson

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

State v. Johnson

196 S.E.2d 612, 18 N.C. App. 338, 1973 N.C. App. LEXIS 1862

CourtCourt of Appeals of North Carolina

DecidedMay 23, 1973

DocketNo. 735SC369

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 196 S.E.2d 612 (State v. Johnson) 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. Johnson, 196 S.E.2d 612, 18 N.C. App. 338, 1973 N.C. App. LEXIS 1862 (N.C. Ct. App. 1973).

Pincite

Opinion

CAMPBELL, Judge.

The only question on appeal argued by defendant is that the punishment he received is excessive, since his only crime was against property. Defendant argued, relying upon Furman v. Georgia, 408 U.S. 238, 33 L.Ed. 2d 346, 92 S.Ct. 2726 (1972), that because the trial court has wide discretion in determining the length of time of imprisonment it may order, such discretion is discriminatory, and thus unconstitutional.

Discretionary sentencing statutes with respect to imprisonment or fine are not unconstitutional. A sentence of imprisonment which is within the maximum authorized by statute is not cruel or unusual punishment. Where the trial judge has imposed a prison sentence within that allowed by statute, the judgment must be upheld. State v. Cradle, 281 N.C. 198, 188 S.E. 2d 296, cert. denied, 409 U.S. 1047, 34 L.Ed. 2d 499, 93 S.Ct. 537 (1972).

Just as the trial judge in Cradle did not abuse his discretion in sentencing that defendant to imprisonment for seven to ten years for uttering a forged check in the sum of $50.00, so we find no abuse of discretion in the instant case.

Affirmed.

Judges Parker and Hedrick concur.

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