State v. McClure

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

State v. McClure

186 S.E.2d 609, 13 N.C. App. 634, 1972 N.C. App. LEXIS 2297

CourtCourt of Appeals of North Carolina

DecidedFebruary 23, 1972

Docket7218SC146

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 186 S.E.2d 609 (State v. McClure) 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. McClure, 186 S.E.2d 609, 13 N.C. App. 634, 1972 N.C. App. LEXIS 2297 (N.C. Ct. App. 1972).

Pincite

Opinion

PARKER, Judge.

Since defendant pleaded guilty, this appeal presents for review only the question whether error appears on the face of the record proper. State v. Roberts, 279 N.C. 500, 183 S.E. 2d 647. None does, and defendant’s counsel so concedes.

The brief of the Attorney General points out that the first count in the bill of indictment in Case No. 71CR38916, which charged the offense of felonious larceny, was defective in that it failed to allege the name of the owner of the property stolen, citing State v. McKoy, 265 N.C. 380, 144 S.E. 2d 46. This defect, however, is immaterial, since defendant did not plead guilty and no judgment was imposed with respect to the offense charged in the first count of that bill. In that case he pleaded guilty only to the offense charged in the second count of the bill, receiving stolen property knowing the same to have been stolen. In a prosecution for receiving stolen goods, it is not essential that the indictment state the names of those from whom the goods were stolen. State v. Brady, 237 N.C. 675, 75 S.E. 2d 791.

We have carefully examined the entire record and find

No error.

Chief Judge Mallard and Judge Morris concur.

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

PARKER, Judge.

Since defendant pleaded guilty, this appeal presents for review only the question whether error appears on the face of the record proper. State v. Roberts, 279 N.C. 500, 183 S.E. 2d 647. None does, and defendant’s counsel so concedes.

The brief of the Attorney General points out that the first count in the bill of indictment in Case No. 71CR38916, which charged the offense of felonious larceny, was defective in that it failed to allege the name of the owner of the property stolen, citing State v. McKoy, 265 N.C. 380, 144 S.E. 2d 46. This defect, however, is immaterial, since defendant did not plead guilty and no judgment was imposed with respect to the offense charged in the first count of that bill. In that case he pleaded guilty only to the offense charged in the second count of the bill, receiving stolen property knowing the same to have been stolen. In a prosecution for receiving stolen goods, it is not essential that the indictment state the names of those from whom the goods were stolen. State v. Brady, 237 N.C. 675, 75 S.E. 2d 791.

We have carefully examined the entire record and find

No error.

Chief Judge Mallard and Judge Morris concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

186 S.E.2d 609, 13 N.C. App. 634, 1972 N.C. App. LEXIS 2297, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-mcclure-ncctapp-1972.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack