State v. Mosteller

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

State v. Mosteller

164 S.E.2d 27, 3 N.C. App. 67, 1968 N.C. App. LEXIS 792

CourtCourt of Appeals of North Carolina

DecidedNovember 13, 1968

Docket6825SC255

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 164 S.E.2d 27 (State v. Mosteller) 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. Mosteller, 164 S.E.2d 27, 3 N.C. App. 67, 1968 N.C. App. LEXIS 792 (N.C. Ct. App. 1968).

Pincite

Opinion

Parker, J.

The sentences imposed were within the maximum authorized by G.S. 14-120. Appellant does not attack the constitutionality of that statute but pleads that the sentences imposed upon him in this case were abnormally long in view of the relatively small amount of money involved in each of the three checks and in view of the fact that it was his father’s name which was forged. It is, however, firmly established in our jurisprudence that when the punishment imposed does not exceed the limits fixed by statute, it cannot be considered cruel and unusual punishment in a constitutional sense. State v. Bruce, 268 N.C. 174, 150 S.E. 2d 216. The court’s authority to provide that two or more such sentences shall run consecutively is also well established. State v. Dawson, 268 N.C. 603, 151 S.E. 2d 203. Even imposition of two life sentences to run 'consecutively does not contravene the constitutional prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. State v. Bruce, supra.

Before imposing sentence, the trial judge had the opportunity to observe the defendant and was in position to know something of his previous history.’Thp sentences imposed were within statutory limits *69 and within the authority of the trial court and will not be disturbed on appeal. State v. Faison, 272 N.C. 146, 157 S.E. 2d 664.

No error.

BROCK and Britt, JJ., concur.

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

Parker, J.

The sentences imposed were within the maximum authorized by G.S. 14-120. Appellant does not attack the constitutionality of that statute but pleads that the sentences imposed upon him in this case were abnormally long in view of the relatively small amount of money involved in each of the three checks and in view of the fact that it was his father’s name which was forged. It is, however, firmly established in our jurisprudence that when the punishment imposed does not exceed the limits fixed by statute, it cannot be considered cruel and unusual punishment in a constitutional sense. State v. Bruce, 268 N.C. 174, 150 S.E. 2d 216. The court’s authority to provide that two or more such sentences shall run consecutively is also well established. State v. Dawson, 268 N.C. 603, 151 S.E. 2d 203. Even imposition of two life sentences to run 'consecutively does not contravene the constitutional prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. State v. Bruce, supra.

Before imposing sentence, the trial judge had the opportunity to observe the defendant and was in position to know something of his previous history.’Thp sentences imposed were within statutory limits *69 and within the authority of the trial court and will not be disturbed on appeal. State v. Faison, 272 N.C. 146, 157 S.E. 2d 664.

No error.

BROCK and Britt, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

164 S.E.2d 27, 3 N.C. App. 67, 1968 N.C. App. LEXIS 792, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-mosteller-ncctapp-1968.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack