State v. Barrett
| Decision Date | 21 March 1956 |
| Docket Number | No. 73,73 |
| Citation | 243 N.C. 686,91 S.E.2d 917 |
| Parties | STATE, v. William BARRETT. |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
William B. Rodman, Jr., Atty. Gen., and Claude L. Love, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
Albion Dunn, Greensboro, for defendant, appellant.
The violation of the ordinance of the City of Greenville is a violation of a penal law of the State of North Carolina, because G.S. § 14-4 provides that 'If any person shall violate an ordinance of a city or town, he shall be guilty of a misdemeanor'. Borad of Education of Vance County v. Town of Henderson, 126 N.C. 689, 36 S.E. 158; State v. Taylor, 133 N.C. 755, 46 S.E. 5; State v. Wilkes, 233 N.C. 645, 65 S.E.2d 129.
The validity of Judge Bundy's judgment suspending execution of the sentence of imprisonment on certain conditions is not challenged on appeal. State v. Johnson, 226 N.C. 266, 37 S.E.2d 678; State v. Miller, 225 N.C. 213, 34 S.E.2d 143.
Whether the defendant had wilfully violated the conditions upon which the sentence of imprisonment was suspended presents questions of fact for the Judge, and not issues of fact for a jury. State v. Johnson, 169 N.C. 311, 84 S.E. 767; State v. Hardin, 183 N.C. 815, 112 S.E. 593; State v. Millner, 240 N.C. 602, 83 S.E.2d 546.
A reading of the record shows that there was sufficient competent evidence before Judge Bundy to support his findings of fact that the defendant during the period of probation had wilfully violated a penal law of this State, and had wilfully failed to avoid persons or places of disreputable or harmful character, both conditions to be observed by the defendant to avoid serving the sentence of imprisonment. Such findings are sufficient to support the Judge's order revoking probation, and activating the sentence of imprisonment. That being true, it is immaterial whether there is sufficient competent evidence to support the finding that the defendant had failed to work faithfully at suitable employment, as far as possible.
Affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Robinson
...sentence of imprisonment was suspended, presents a question of fact for the judge, and not an issue of fact for a jury. State v. Barrett, 243 N.C. 686, 91 S.E.2d 917; State v. Everitt, 164 N.C. 399, 79 S.E. 274, 47 L.R. A.,N.S., In the instant case the burden of proof is on the State to sho......
-
Cauble v. City of Asheville
...legislature in enacting G.S. 14-4 made criminal what would otherwise be civil penalties for violations of ordinances. State v. Barrett, 243 N.C. 686, 91 S.E.2d 917 (1956); School Directors v. City of Asheville, supra; Board of Education v. Henderson, 126 N.C. 689, 36 S.E. 158 (1900). As we ......
-
State v. Boggs, 7215SC753
... ... Barrett, 243 N.C. 686, 91 S.E.2d ... 917 (1956); United States v. Ball, 358 F.2d 367 (4th Cir. 1966), cert. denied, 384 U.S. 971, 86 S.Ct. 1863, 16 L.Ed.2d 683 and United States v. You, 159 F.2d 688 (2d Cir. 1947) ... Under the facts found in this case, the trial judge did not err in ... ...
-
Frosty Ice Cream, Inc. v. Hord, A-L
...for defendant appellee. BOBBITT, Justice. The violation of a (valid) municipal ordinance is a misdemeanor. G.S. § 14-4; State v. Barrett, 243 N.C. 686, 91 S.E.2d 917, and cases Plaintiffs do not allege that they, or any of them, were at any time prosecuted or arrested for alleged violation ......