State v. Miller

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

State v. Miller

164 S.E.2d 406, 3 N.C. App. 227, 1968 N.C. App. LEXIS 832

CourtCourt of Appeals of North Carolina

DecidedDecember 11, 1968

DocketNo. 6826SC453

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 164 S.E.2d 406 (State v. Miller) 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. Miller, 164 S.E.2d 406, 3 N.C. App. 227, 1968 N.C. App. LEXIS 832 (N.C. Ct. App. 1968).

Pincite

Opinion

Campbell, J.

The only assignment of error is the fact that the trial judge accepted a plea of guilty tendered in open court by the defendant’s attorney without inquiring of the defendant personally if his plea was voluntarily made, if he understood what he was doing and if he authorized his attorney to enter this plea in his behalf. There is no contention that the plea was not voluntarily made, that the defendant did not understand what he was doing when the plea was entered, or that his attorney was not authorized to enter such a plea. This same question has been before this Court and it would be an exercise in futility to discuss it again.

On the authority of State v. Abernathy, 1 N.C. App. 625, 162 S.E. 2d 114, the judgment of the superior court is

Affirmed.

Mallard, C.J., and MoRRis, J., concur.

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

Campbell, J.

The only assignment of error is the fact that the trial judge accepted a plea of guilty tendered in open court by the defendant’s attorney without inquiring of the defendant personally if his plea was voluntarily made, if he understood what he was doing and if he authorized his attorney to enter this plea in his behalf. There is no contention that the plea was not voluntarily made, that the defendant did not understand what he was doing when the plea was entered, or that his attorney was not authorized to enter such a plea. This same question has been before this Court and it would be an exercise in futility to discuss it again.

On the authority of State v. Abernathy, 1 N.C. App. 625, 162 S.E. 2d 114, the judgment of the superior court is

Affirmed.

Mallard, C.J., and MoRRis, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

164 S.E.2d 406, 3 N.C. App. 227, 1968 N.C. App. LEXIS 832, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-miller-ncctapp-1968.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack