State v. . Robinson

30 S.E.2d 320, 224 N.C. 412, 1944 N.C. LEXIS 374
CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina
DecidedJune 2, 1944
StatusPublished
Cited by11 cases

This text of 30 S.E.2d 320 (State v. . Robinson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court 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. . Robinson, 30 S.E.2d 320, 224 N.C. 412, 1944 N.C. LEXIS 374 (N.C. 1944).

Opinion

ScheNCK, J.

It appears that the warrants upon which these defendants were brought to trial are practically in the words of G. S., 14-290, which, in part, reads: “If any person shall open, set on foot, carry on, promote, make or draw, publicly or privately, a lottery, by whatever name, style or title the same may be denominated or known; . . . shall *414 be guilty of a misdemeanor, and shall be fined not exceeding two thousand dollars or imprisoned not exceeding six months, or both, in the discretion of the Court. . . .”

Since the sentences imposed below of imprisonment of twenty (20) and twenty-two (22) months, respectively, are in excess of the limitation of punishment set forth in the statute, not exceeding six months imprisonment, there were errors in the judgment below.

It is contended on the part of the State that the pleas of guilty entered by the defendants were to the offense delineated in G. S., 14-291 (1), which, in part, reads: “If any person shall sell, barter or cause to be sold or bartered, any ticket, token, certificate or order for any number or shares in any lottery, commonly known as the numbers or butter and egg lottery, or lotteries of similar character, to be drawn or paid within or without the state, such person shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and shall be punished by fine or imprisonment, or both, in the discretion of the court.”

The contention of the State cannot be sustained, since the statute upon which it relies inveighs against the selling, bartering, or causing to be sold or bartered, any ticket, token, certificate or order for any number or shares in any lottery,” and no such charge is made in the warrant upon which the defendants entered pleas of guilty.

G. S., 14-290, refers to persons who promote, make or draw, publicly or privately, a lottery, by whatever name, while G. S., 14-291 (1), deals only with those persons who shall “sell, barter or cause to be sold or bartered, any ticket, token, certificate or order,” etc. Thus it is apparent that the two statutes not only act upon different persons and serve purposes which are not the same but also they deal with different conditions. One inveighs against trafficking in lottery tickets and the other is designed to effect those persons engaged in promoting a particular kind of lottery.

“A plea of guilty, accepted and entered by the court, is a conviction or the equivalent of a conviction of the highest order, the effect of which is to authorize the imposition of the sentence prescribed by law on a verdict of guilty of the crime sufficiently charged in the indictment or information.” (Italics ours.) 14 American Jurisprudence, Criminal Law, par. 272, p. 952.

The court was not authorized to inflict punishment beyond the bounds prescribed by the statute under which the warrant was drawn. In entering pleas of guilty the defendants admitted only the acts charged, and can be punished only for such acts.

In view of the errors above indicated, it follows that the cases must be remanded to the Superior Court for judgments within the limitations of *415 G. S., 14-290, under which the warrants, upon which the pleas were entered, were drawn.

Error and remanded.

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

Related

State v. Evans
646 S.E.2d 859 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 2007)
State v. Caldwell
153 S.E.2d 34 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1967)
Carroll v. Turner
262 F. Supp. 486 (E.D. North Carolina, 1966)
Harrell v. Scheidt
92 S.E.2d 182 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1956)
State v. Hare
90 S.E.2d 550 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1955)
Huff v. Anderson
90 S.E.2d 327 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1955)
Bubar v. Dizdar
60 N.W.2d 77 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1953)
State v. Doughtie
74 S.E.2d 922 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1953)
State v. Gibson
65 S.E.2d 508 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1951)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
30 S.E.2d 320, 224 N.C. 412, 1944 N.C. LEXIS 374, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-robinson-nc-1944.