State v. Martin

178 S.E.2d 32, 10 N.C. App. 181, 1970 N.C. App. LEXIS 1227
Court of Appeals of North Carolina·Decided December 16, 1970·No. 7010SC611·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

BROCK, Judge.

Defendant excepts to and assigns as error the entry of judgment in each case; these assignments of error present the cases for review for error appearing on the face of the records. 3 Strong, N. C. Index 2d, Criminal Law § 161, p. 112.

The bill of indictment in each case is proper in form and clearly identifies the premises broken into. Defendant was represented by experienced counsel appointed by the Court. The *182 trial judge painstakingly examined defendant concerning his understanding and the voluntariness of his pleas of guilty; and upon competent evidence determined that the pleas were understandingly and voluntarily entered. The sentences imposed are well within the limits of what legally might have been imposed.

On appeal defense counsel candidly states that he can find no error; with this appraisal we agree.

No error.

Judges Moréis and Vaughn concur.

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

State v. Martin, 178 S.E.2d 32, 10 N.C. App. 181, 1970 N.C. App. LEXIS 1227 (N.C. Ct. App. 1970).

178 S.E.2d 32 (State v. Martin) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

State v. Brown
201 S.E.2d 577 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1974)
State v. Bryant
192 S.E.2d 642 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1972)
State v. Gregory
188 S.E.2d 26 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1972)