Home/Supreme Court of North Carolina/State v. Tinsley

State v. Tinsley

183 S.E.2d 669, 279 N.C. 482, 1971 N.C. LEXIS 852
CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina
DecidedOctober 13, 1971
Docket75
StatusPublished
Cited by17 cases

This text of 183 S.E.2d 669 (State v. Tinsley) 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. Tinsley, 183 S.E.2d 669, 279 N.C. 482, 1971 N.C. LEXIS 852 (N.C. 1971).

Opinion

HIGGINS, Justice.

In the present condition of the record, the only question of law or legal inference presented is whether error of law appears upon the face of the record proper. State v. Dawson, 268 N.C. 603, 151 S.E. 2d 203; Strong’s North Carolina Index, 2d, Vol. 3, Criminal Law, XII. Appeal and Error, § 146, p. 87. Careful review shows a valid indictment, the presence of the defendant before the court represented by counsel and a valid plea of guilty entered after extended inquiry. Error is neither shown nor suggested by anything that appears upon the face of the record. Ordinarily, in criminal cases the record proper consists of (1) the organization of the court, (2) the charge (information, warrant or indictment), (3) the arraignment and plea, (4) the verdict, and (5) the judgment.

This case fits the pattern described in State v. Darnell, 266 N.C. 640, 146 S.E. 2d 800: “This case is a fair example of the manner in which that unlimited right (of appeal) is now being perverted at the whim of those who have nothing to lose. An indigent defendant has only to say T appeal,’ and the county is required to furnish him with counsel, ‘transcript and records . . . for . . . appellate review.’ ” In all likelihood, some “prison lawyer” has advised the defendant that his having been tried on the robbery charge which constituted an essential element of his first degree burglary charge, he is now shielded from the capital offense and has nothing to lose by the appeal. State v. Birckhead, 256 N.C. 494, 124 S.E. 2d 838; State v. Bell, 205 N.C. 225, 171 S.E. 50.

*484 A careful review of the record proper fails to disclose either error of law or of legal inference.

No error.

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

Related

State v. Smith
285 S.E.2d 800 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1982)
State v. Wilson
223 S.E.2d 311 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1976)
State v. Armstrong
212 S.E.2d 894 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1975)
State v. Willis
204 S.E.2d 33 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1974)
State v. Copeland
199 S.E.2d 448 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1973)
State v. Floyd
199 S.E.2d 496 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1973)
State v. Goff
199 S.E.2d 502 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1973)
State v. Gaines
194 S.E.2d 839 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1973)
State v. McClain
193 S.E.2d 108 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1972)
State v. Russell
192 S.E.2d 294 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1972)
State v. Gaddy
188 S.E.2d 745 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1972)
State v. Gregory
188 S.E.2d 26 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1972)
State v. Ford
187 S.E.2d 741 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1972)
State v. Hudson
187 S.E.2d 756 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1972)
State v. Ford
185 S.E.2d 328 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1971)
State v. Sanders
185 S.E.2d 137 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1971)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
183 S.E.2d 669, 279 N.C. 482, 1971 N.C. LEXIS 852, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-tinsley-nc-1971.