State v. Wilson

Supreme Court of North Carolina

State v. Wilson

110 S.E.2d 813, 251 N.C. 174, 1959 N.C. LEXIS 530

CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina

DecidedNovember 4, 1959

Docket369

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 110 S.E.2d 813 (State v. Wilson) 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. Wilson, 110 S.E.2d 813, 251 N.C. 174, 1959 N.C. LEXIS 530 (N.C. 1959).

Pincite

Opinion

PeR CuRiam.

While the evidence heard by the court, solely for the purpose stated above, showed defendant had received the meat from the same persons in a course of dealings, defendant asserts it shows he did not receive meat of a value in excess of $100.00 at any one time. Plis complaint seems to be that the court, ex mero motu, should have stricken out his plea of guilty and directed that defendant be prosecuted on multiple warrants charging separate offenses, each involving the receiving of stolen meat of a value less than $100.00.

Since the State, in the circumstances, had no reason to bring forward all available evidence, we do not consider whether the facts, if fully developed, were such as to warrant conviction of the offense charged. Suffice to say, defendant made no motion for leave to withdraw his plea of guilty nor does it appear that the contention now made was brought to the attention of the trial judge.

*175 When defend&nt entered bis plea of guilty he bad full knowledge of all circumstances relating to his criminal conduct. Apparently defendant’s original counsel was of opinion that the entry of the plea of guilty as charged was to defendant’s advantage; and, in view of the judgment pronounced, we cannot say this was not the wiser course.

Defendant’s plea of guilty was equivalent to a conviction of the offense charged and no other proof of guilt was required. Absent a motion for leave to withdraw such plea, the court properly pronounced judgment thereon.

Affirmed.

HiggiNS, J., not sitting.

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

PeR CuRiam.

While the evidence heard by the court, solely for the purpose stated above, showed defendant had received the meat from the same persons in a course of dealings, defendant asserts it shows he did not receive meat of a value in excess of $100.00 at any one time. Plis complaint seems to be that the court, ex mero motu, should have stricken out his plea of guilty and directed that defendant be prosecuted on multiple warrants charging separate offenses, each involving the receiving of stolen meat of a value less than $100.00.

Since the State, in the circumstances, had no reason to bring forward all available evidence, we do not consider whether the facts, if fully developed, were such as to warrant conviction of the offense charged. Suffice to say, defendant made no motion for leave to withdraw his plea of guilty nor does it appear that the contention now made was brought to the attention of the trial judge.

*175 When defend&nt entered bis plea of guilty he bad full knowledge of all circumstances relating to his criminal conduct. Apparently defendant’s original counsel was of opinion that the entry of the plea of guilty as charged was to defendant’s advantage; and, in view of the judgment pronounced, we cannot say this was not the wiser course.

Defendant’s plea of guilty was equivalent to a conviction of the offense charged and no other proof of guilt was required. Absent a motion for leave to withdraw such plea, the court properly pronounced judgment thereon.

Affirmed.

HiggiNS, J., not sitting.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

110 S.E.2d 813, 251 N.C. 174, 1959 N.C. LEXIS 530, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-wilson-nc-1959.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack