State v. Shepherd

55 S.E.2d 79, 230 N.C. 605, 1949 N.C. LEXIS 400

• Court: Supreme Court of North Carolina
• Decided: September 21, 1949
• Status: Published

Opinion

Stacy, C. J.

The question posed is the sufficiency of the record to support the judgment.

It must be conceded that some dubiety arises in respect of the intent, scope and purpose of the hearing before the trial court as the transcript is contradictory on the subject. The defendant contends that his plea of nolo contendere was a conditional one with the ultimate issue of his guilt or innocence to be determined by the court. He now concedes that such procedure was ill advised and should be held for naught. S. v. Camby, 209 N.C. 50, 182 S.E. 715. The court seems to have had a different understanding of the matter. However, in the absence of a request by the defendant to withdraw his plea of nolo contendere, we cannot say reversible error has been made to appear. He had ample opportunity in the trial court to interpose such request, if he there felt aggrieved by any misunderstanding or the turn of events.

It is true the language of the plea and the pronouncement of guilt at the conclusion of the evidence tend to support or at least to lend color to the defendant’s view. These are overborne, we think, by the announcement that the court was rendering no verdict, but was pronouncing judgment on the defendant’s plea of nolo contendere, which later statement appears without challenge or objection on the record. Thus, the case pivots on an interpretation of the record with something to be said on both sides and the defendant required to show error against a presumption of regularity. S. v. Creech, 229 N.C. 662, 51 S.E. 2d 348; Cole v. R. R., 211 N.C. 591, 191 S.E. 353.

For purposes of judgment and disposition, a plea of nolo contendere ias tbe same effect as a plea of guilty. S. v. Ayers, 226 N.C. 579, 39 S.E. 2d 607; S. v. Parker, 220 N.C. 416, 17 S.E. 2d 475; S. v. Burnett, 174 N.C. 796, 93 S.E. 473.

Affirmed.