State v. Shoemaker

Supreme Court of North Carolina

State v. Shoemaker

160 S.E.2d 281, 273 N.C. 475, 1968 N.C. LEXIS 621

CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina

DecidedApril 10, 1968

Docket411

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 160 S.E.2d 281 (State v. Shoemaker) 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. Shoemaker, 160 S.E.2d 281, 273 N.C. 475, 1968 N.C. LEXIS 621 (N.C. 1968).

Pincite

Opinion

Pee Cueiam.

The sentence imposed does not exceed the maximum prescribed by the applicable statute so as to constitute cruel and unusual punishment and be violative of defendant’s constitutional rights. State v. LePard, 270 N.C. 157, 153 S.E. 2d 875; G.S. 148-45. Neither is there merit in defendant’s contention that the sentence imposed by the trial court constituted double punishment or double jeopardy, in violation of his constitutional rights, in that he had already been punished under prison regulations by being denied certain privileges and by being subjected to segregated confinement.

The prison rules authorized by G.S. 148-11 are administrative and not judicial. The courts are not authorized to deal with the giving or withholding of privileges or rewards under these rules. State v. Garris, 265 N.C. 711, 144 S.E. 2d 901. It follows that the administrative application of these rules by the prison authorities cannot affect sentences imposed by the courts.

The allegations contained in the bill of indictment are sufficient to charge and support a conviction of the felony of third offense of escape. State v. Worley, 268 N.C. 687, 151 S.E. 2d 618.

An examination of the record and all assignments of error reveals no error prejudicial to defendant.

No error.

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

Pee Cueiam.

The sentence imposed does not exceed the maximum prescribed by the applicable statute so as to constitute cruel and unusual punishment and be violative of defendant’s constitutional rights. State v. LePard, 270 N.C. 157, 153 S.E. 2d 875; G.S. 148-45. Neither is there merit in defendant’s contention that the sentence imposed by the trial court constituted double punishment or double jeopardy, in violation of his constitutional rights, in that he had already been punished under prison regulations by being denied certain privileges and by being subjected to segregated confinement.

The prison rules authorized by G.S. 148-11 are administrative and not judicial. The courts are not authorized to deal with the giving or withholding of privileges or rewards under these rules. State v. Garris, 265 N.C. 711, 144 S.E. 2d 901. It follows that the administrative application of these rules by the prison authorities cannot affect sentences imposed by the courts.

The allegations contained in the bill of indictment are sufficient to charge and support a conviction of the felony of third offense of escape. State v. Worley, 268 N.C. 687, 151 S.E. 2d 618.

An examination of the record and all assignments of error reveals no error prejudicial to defendant.

No error.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

160 S.E.2d 281, 273 N.C. 475, 1968 N.C. LEXIS 621, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-shoemaker-nc-1968.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack