State v. Sullivan

151 S.E.2d 41, 268 N.C. 571, 1966 N.C. LEXIS 1261
Supreme Court of North Carolina·Decided November 23, 1966·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The defendant’s sole exception is that he did not receive a fair and impartial trial before a fair tribunal. In support of his claim he quotes the presiding judge at the time of sentencing him: “North Carolina has been made a picking place for criminals from Maryland. They are riding down here regularly from Maryland, robbing people who are trying to make an honest living. I find this true in about every court I hold.”

This Court does not intend to restrict informal remarks made by a judge at the time of pronouncing judgment, but there is nothing in Judge Burgwyn’s statements to justify the defendant’s exception, even though he be a resident of Maryland.

The undisputed facts in the cases, plus the defendant’s plea of guilty in both, justified a substantial sentence. The fact that the court imposed only a 5-year sentence when a total of 40 years imprisonment was permissible, refutes his claim that he was not treated fairly.

No error.

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

State v. Sullivan, 151 S.E.2d 41, 268 N.C. 571, 1966 N.C. LEXIS 1261 (N.C. 1966).

151 S.E.2d 41 (State v. Sullivan) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Josiah Deyton v. Alvin Keller, Jr.
682 F.3d 340 (Fourth Circuit, 2012)
State v. Swinney
155 S.E.2d 545 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1967)