State v. Tripp

Supreme Court of North Carolina

State v. Tripp

72 S.E.2d 660, 236 N.C. 320, 1952 N.C. LEXIS 532

CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina

DecidedOctober 15, 1952

Docket299

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 72 S.E.2d 660 (State v. Tripp) 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. Tripp, 72 S.E.2d 660, 236 N.C. 320, 1952 N.C. LEXIS 532 (N.C. 1952).

Pincite

Opinion

WinbobNe, J.

While the assignment of error of defendant is “that the court below erred in entering judgment as it appears in the record, there being no charge before the court vesting it with authority to proceed to judgment,” it is stated in brief of defendant, appellant, filed in this Court, that the only question involved on the appeal is as to whether or not the wording of the affidavit on which the warrant issued is sufficient to charge a crime. A kindred question is treated in the case of S. v. Daughtry, ante, 316, opinion in which is handed down cotemporaneously herewith. The principle applied there is applicable here.

Here as there the affidavit, stripped of surplusage, charges a criminal offense under the State law. Here it is operating a motor vehicle on the public highways of the State while under the influence of intoxicating liquors. See S. v. Blankenship, 229 N.C. 589, 50 S.E. 2d 724, where the subject has been recently reviewed. And it is presumed that by the plea of nolo contendere, entered through his counsel, defendant waived any irregularity in matter of procedure. G.S. 15-140.

Hence, on the authority of S. v. Daughtry, ante, 316, the judgment from which appeal is taken is

Affirmed.

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

WinbobNe, J.

While the assignment of error of defendant is “that the court below erred in entering judgment as it appears in the record, there being no charge before the court vesting it with authority to proceed to judgment,” it is stated in brief of defendant, appellant, filed in this Court, that the only question involved on the appeal is as to whether or not the wording of the affidavit on which the warrant issued is sufficient to charge a crime. A kindred question is treated in the case of S. v. Daughtry, ante, 316, opinion in which is handed down cotemporaneously herewith. The principle applied there is applicable here.

Here as there the affidavit, stripped of surplusage, charges a criminal offense under the State law. Here it is operating a motor vehicle on the public highways of the State while under the influence of intoxicating liquors. See S. v. Blankenship, 229 N.C. 589, 50 S.E. 2d 724, where the subject has been recently reviewed. And it is presumed that by the plea of nolo contendere, entered through his counsel, defendant waived any irregularity in matter of procedure. G.S. 15-140.

Hence, on the authority of S. v. Daughtry, ante, 316, the judgment from which appeal is taken is

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

72 S.E.2d 660, 236 N.C. 320, 1952 N.C. LEXIS 532, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-tripp-nc-1952.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack