State v. Lawing

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

State v. Lawing

182 S.E.2d 10, 12 N.C. App. 21, 1971 N.C. App. LEXIS 1265

CourtCourt of Appeals of North Carolina

DecidedJuly 14, 1971

Docket7126SC399

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 182 S.E.2d 10 (State v. Lawing) 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. Lawing, 182 S.E.2d 10, 12 N.C. App. 21, 1971 N.C. App. LEXIS 1265 (N.C. Ct. App. 1971).

Pincite

Opinion

*23 MALLARD, Chief Judge.

Defendant assigns error to much of the evidence introduced by the State at the trial. We have examined the evidence, and defendant’s assignments of error thereto are overruled.

Defendant’s motion in arrest of judgment filed herein is denied. The bill of indictment in this case is sufficient and is distinguishable from the bill of indictment in the case of State v. Able, 11 N.C. App. 141, 180 S.E. 2d 333 (1971).

Defendant assigns as error the discrepancy between the pronouncement in open court that defendant be imprisoned for six years and the written judgment signed by the judge which indicated that he be imprisoned for eight years. We are unable to tell from the ambiguous state of the record the true character of the sentence. It is apparent that the written judgment contains a clerical error. For this error, the cause is remanded to the trial court to have the commitment corrected to conform to the sentence of six years as the record shows was actually pronounced in open court. State v. Brown, 7 N.C. App. 372, 172 S.E. 2d 99 (1970).

Remanded with instructions.

Judges Campbell and Hedrick concur.

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

*23 MALLARD, Chief Judge.

Defendant assigns error to much of the evidence introduced by the State at the trial. We have examined the evidence, and defendant’s assignments of error thereto are overruled.

Defendant’s motion in arrest of judgment filed herein is denied. The bill of indictment in this case is sufficient and is distinguishable from the bill of indictment in the case of State v. Able, 11 N.C. App. 141, 180 S.E. 2d 333 (1971).

Defendant assigns as error the discrepancy between the pronouncement in open court that defendant be imprisoned for six years and the written judgment signed by the judge which indicated that he be imprisoned for eight years. We are unable to tell from the ambiguous state of the record the true character of the sentence. It is apparent that the written judgment contains a clerical error. For this error, the cause is remanded to the trial court to have the commitment corrected to conform to the sentence of six years as the record shows was actually pronounced in open court. State v. Brown, 7 N.C. App. 372, 172 S.E. 2d 99 (1970).

Remanded with instructions.

Judges Campbell and Hedrick concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

182 S.E.2d 10, 12 N.C. App. 21, 1971 N.C. App. LEXIS 1265, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-lawing-ncctapp-1971.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack