State v. Beasley

• Decision Date: 09 October 1946
• Docket Number: 221
• Citation: 39 S.E.2d 605,226 N.C. 577
• Parties: STATE v. BEASLEY.
• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court

39 S.E.2d 605

226 N.C. 577

STATE v. BEASLEY.

No. 221

Supreme Court of North Carolina

October 9, 1946

The defendant was charged in the Recorder's Court of Johnston County with the possession of a still and other property designed and intended for use in the manufacture of intoxicating liquor in violation of G.S. s 18-4.

The minutes of the Recorder's Court, which had jurisdiction of the offense charged, showed that the defendant, in that court, entered a plea of guilty, and that judgment was pronounced imposing sentence of four months in jail to be assigned to work on the roads under the direction of the State Highway and Public Works Commission, and that from this judgment the defendant appealed to the Superior Court.

In the Superior Court it was held that the defendant having entered in the Recorder's Court a plea of guilty to a misdemeanor within the jurisdiction of that court was bound by that plea on his appeal, and was not entitled to a jury trial in the Superior Court. The judge then heard evidence from two witnesses tending to show that the defendant had reputation for making whisky, and that after his hearing in the Recorder's Court he had left home and had remained away for two years. The court pronounced judgment imposing sentence of 12 months on the roads.

The defendant excepted and appealed.

Harry M. McMullan, Atty. Gen. and T. W. Bruton, Hughes J. Rhodes and Ralph M. Moody, Asst. Attys. Gen., for the State.

Barefoot & Trader, of Benson, for defendant.

DEVIN Justice.

In the Superior Court it was correctly ruled that the defendant's plea of guilty, formally entered in the Johnston County Recorder's Court, to the charge of a misdemeanor within the jurisdiction of that court was conclusive upon the question of his guilt and that he was not entitled to trial by jury in the Superior Court. The plea of guilty in the Recorder's Court foreclosed any further consideration of the facts. State v. Crandall, 225 N.C. 148, 33 S.E.2d 861, 862.

In the Crandall case, where the facts were similar to those in the case at bar, Justice Winborne, writing the opinion of the Court, stated the rule in these words: 'Where a defendant pleads guilty in a court inferior to the Superior Court, such as the recorder's court in this case, and that fact appears on the face of the record as it comes to the Superior Court on his appeal from the judgment of the inferior court his appeal cannot call in question the facts charged, but brings up for review only matters of law, and the defendant is not entitled to a trial de novo. ' Numerous authorities are cited in support of the principle announced. Decisions from other jurisdictions are in accord. Commonwealth v. Mahoney, 115 Mass. 151; Stokes v. State, 122 Ark. 56, 182 S.W. 521; Hardy v State, 35 Okl.Cr. 75, 248 P. 874; United States v Ury, 2 Cir., 106 F.2d 28, 124 A.L.R. 569; 24 C.J.S., Criminal Law, s 1650, p. 247; 14 A.J., 952.

However a new question is here presented. The defendant has excepted to the judgment in the Superior Court on the ground that while the defendant was held bound by his plea of guilty in the Recorder's Court and not entitled to trial de novo, the court upon that plea entered judgment increasing the sentence from 4 to 12 months. It is contended that in the Superior Court on appeal, unless the defendant was entitled to trial de novo, the hearing should have...