State v. Stevens

113 S.E.2d 577, 252 N.C. 331, 1960 N.C. LEXIS 561
CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina
DecidedApril 6, 1960
Docket367
StatusPublished
Cited by7 cases

This text of 113 S.E.2d 577 (State v. Stevens) 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. Stevens, 113 S.E.2d 577, 252 N.C. 331, 1960 N.C. LEXIS 561 (N.C. 1960).

Opinion

DeNNY, J.

The defendants assign as error the failure of the court below to dismiss as of nonsuit at the close of all the State’s evidence.

Ordinarily, when evidence is introduced by the State after a plea of guilty or of nolo contendere, it is introduced for the purpose of determining what punishment should be imposed and not for the purpose of determining the guilt or innocence of the pleader. S. v. Shepherd, 230 N.C. 605, 55 S.E. 2d 79; S. v. Crump, 209 N.C. 52, 182 S. E. 716.

Moreover, the law does not sanction a conditional plea of nolo con-tendere. S. v. Horne, 234 N.C. 115, 66 S.E. 2d 665; S. v. Thomas, 236 N.C. 196, 72 S.E. 2d 525; S. v. McIntyre, 238 N.C. 305, 77 S.E. 2d 698. Therefore, when a defendant enters a plea of nolo contendere and such plea is accepted by the State, the court is clothed with the same authority to impose judgment as if such defendant had been convicted by a jury or had entered a plea of guilty. S. v. Stone, 245 N.C. 42, 95 S.E. 2d 77; Mintz v. Scheldt, 241 N.C. 268, 84 S.E. 2d 882.

The second and third assignments of error challenge the validity of the judgments entered below. The defendants contend that the judgments are void; that the law prescribes a sentence not in excess of twelve months for larceny from the person, citing S. v. Brown, 150 N.C. 867, 64 S.E. 775.

The last cited case states, “Larceny from the person, regardless of the value of the property, is neither a petty misdemeanor nor a felony, the punishment for which can not exceed one year, under section 3506 of the Revisal. The punishment for such offense, under sections 3500 and 3506, may be as much as ten years in the State’s Prison.”

The appellants have clearly misconstrued the language on which they are relying. Section 3506 of the Revisal, now G.S. 14-72, clearly points out that “if the larceny is from the person” the limitation in the statute does not apply. In the instant case the larceny was from the person, in the sum of $104.00. Therefore, as pointed out in S. v. Brown, supra, larceny from the person in any amount is punishable under section 3500 of the Revisal (now G.S. 14-70) and section 3506 of the Revisal (now G.S. 14-72) for as much as ten years in the State’s Prison. Cf. S. v. Surles, 230 N.C. 272, 52 S.E. 2d 880.

These assignments of error are without merit and each of them is overruled.

*333 The rulings of the court below and the judgments imposed will be upheld.

Affirmed.

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

Related

State v. Benfield
179 S.E.2d 388 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1971)
State v. Benfield
177 S.E.2d 306 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1970)
State v. Jones
168 S.E.2d 380 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1969)
State v. Bowers
161 S.E.2d 11 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1968)
State v. Worley
151 S.E.2d 618 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1966)
State v. Parker
138 S.E.2d 496 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1964)
State v. Williams
134 S.E.2d 163 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1964)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
113 S.E.2d 577, 252 N.C. 331, 1960 N.C. LEXIS 561, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-stevens-nc-1960.