State v. Blackmon, 146
Decision Date | 30 October 1963 |
Docket Number | No. 146,146 |
Citation | 260 N.C. 352,132 S.E.2d 880 |
Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
Parties | STATE of North Carolina v. Robert James BLACKMON. |
Atty. Gen. T. W. Bruton, Deputy Atty. Gen. Harry W. McGalliard, for the State.
Hollowell & Stott, Gastonia, for defendant appellant.
The only question presented on this appeal is whether or not a sentence of not less than twenty years nor more than thirty years on a plea of guilty to the charge of unlawful possession of implements of housebreaking, constitutes cruel and unusual punishment within the meaning of Article I, Section 14, of the Constitution of North Carolina.
The appellant does not challenge the validity of the sentence imposed in Case No. 4866. Hence, it is affirmed.
The question posed on this appeal does, however, require a consideration of the sentence imposed in Case No. 4867, in light of several of our former decisions and the provisions of G.S. § 14-2 and G.S. § 14-3, which limit punishment not to exceed ten years. These statutes read as follows:
'14-2 * * * Every person who shall be convicted of any felony for which no specific punishment is prescribed by statute shall be imprisoned in the county jail or State prison not exceeding two years, or be fined, in the discretion of the court, or if the offense be infamous, the person offending shall be imprisoned in the county jail or State prison not less than four months nor more than ten years, or be fined.
'14-3 * * * All misdemeanors, where a specific punishment is not prescribed shall be punished as misdemeanors at common law; but if the offense be infamous, or done in secrecy and malice, or with deceit and intent to defraud, the offender shall, except where the offense is a conspiracy to commit a misdemeanor, be guilty of a felony and punished by imprisonment in the county jail or State prison for not less than four months nor more than ten years, or shall be fined.'
The foregoing statutes, in almost the identical language set forth above, were codified in the Code of North Carolina, 1883, as sections 1096 and 1097. These sections were carried forward in the Revisal of 1905 as sections 3292 and 3293. They appeared in the Consolidated Statutes of 1919 as sections 4172 and 4173.
One who is convicted or pleads guilty to the charge of the unlawful possession of burglary tools or implements of housebreaking 'shall be guilty of a felony (according to the provisions of G.S. § 14-55) and punished by fine or imprisonment in the State's prison, or both, in the discretion of the court.'
In the case of State v. Driver, 78 N.C. 423, decided in 1878, the defendant had pleaded guilty to an indictment charging him with an assault and battery upon his wife. The defendant was sentenced to a term of five years in the county jail, and then to give a bond with sureties in the sum of $500.00 to keep the peace for five years longer. Justice Reade, in speaking for the Court, said:
Section 9 of Chapter 167 of the Public Laws of North Carolina, 1868-69, was enacted in lieu of the Revisal Code, Chapter 34, Section 27, and read as follows: 'Every crime or offence whatever, heretofore punishable by the laws of North Carolina when the present Constitution went into effect, with public whipping or other corporeal punishment, shall hereafter, in lieu of such corporeal punishment, be punished by imprisonment in the State's prison (or County jail), for not less than four months nor more than ten years.'
Justice Reade in the Driver case quoted with approval from the decision in which Lord Devonshire was tried by the Court of the King's Bench and fined thirty thousand pounds. 11 State Trials, 1354. The case was later considered by the House of Lords, and in its opinion it said: 'This Court held in the Driver case that the court below was without power to sentence the defendant to a term of imprisonment in excess of thirty days.
In State v. Rippy (1900), 127 N.C. 516, 37 S.E. 148, the defendant was indicted for rape and entered a plea of guilty upon the third count in the bill of indictment for 'unlawfully and carnally knowing and abusing' an innocent female between the ages of ten and fourteen years. The solicitor, with the sanction of the court, accepted the plea. This offense was created by Chapter 295, Laws of 1895, now codified as G.S. § 14-26, which provided that the offense 'shall be punished by fine or imprisonment in the state prison, at the discretion of the court.' The sentence imposed was ten years in the State's Prison. Clark, J., later C. J., writing the opinion for the Court, held the sentence imposed was clearly within the punishment authorized. He further held: 'There is nothing to show that this discretion reposed by the statute in the judge was abused.' Continuing, the writer of the opinion said:
The trouble in connection with the question now before us began with the Rippy case. The controversy before the Court in that case was whether the two- or the ten-year maximum applied. The Court disposed of the question presented for determination in that case when it held that the ten-year sentence imposed was within the punishment authorized. However, the writer of the opinion continued by way of dictum and said that punishment by fine or imprisonment, or both, in the discretion of the court, is specific, and hence, section 1096 of the Code (now G.S. § 14-2) did not apply.
Thereafter, using as sound reasoning the dictum in the Rippy case, this Court in State v. Swindell (1925), 189 N.C. 151, 126 S.E. 417, held that G.S. § 14-2 had no application in Swindell's case because punishment by fine or imprisonment, or both, in the discretion of the court, was specific punishment, and that a sentence of thirty years in the State's Prison, at hard labor, was authorized by C.S. 4209 (now G.S. § 14-26), and was not in violation of Article I, Section 14, of the Constitution of North Carolina. In State v. Cain, 209 N.C. 275, 183 S.E. 300, this Court upheld a sentence of not less than 25 nor more than 30 years for violation of the statute under which the present defendant was indicted, on authority of the Swindell case.
In the case of State v. Dunn, 208 N.C. 333, 180 S.E. 708, Clarence Dunn, son of the defendant, while using the defendant's car, struck and killed a person, and thereafter the defendant was indicted and convicted as an accessory after the fact for "aiding, assisting, procuring and counseling the said Clarence Dunn to flee from the scene of said felony,'' etc. C.S. 4201 (now G.S. § 14-18), prior to the enactment of Chapter 249 of the Laws of 1933, read as follows: 'If any person shall commit the crime of manslaughter he shall be punished by imprisonment in the county jail or State prison for not less than four months nor more than twenty years.' The following proviso was added to C.S. 4201 on 10 April 1933: 'Provided, however, that in cases of...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Rabon v. Rowan Memorial Hospital, Inc., 605
...case when, in 1963, it became convinced that the ruling was erroneous and that injustices were resulting from it. See State v. Blackmon, 260 N.C. 352, 132 S.E.2d 880, overruling State v. Swindell, 189 N.C. 151, 126 S.E. 417 and State v. Cain, 209 N.C. 275, 183 S.E. 300. We should be no less......
- Roberts v. Burlington Industries, Inc., 387PA87
-
State v. McDonald
...added.) 4 Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England (1857), at 15. This principle was the decisive factor in State v. Blackmon (1963), 260 N.C. 352, 132 S.E.2d 880. In Blackmon, the Supreme Court of North Carolina held that a sentence of from twenty to thirty years' imprisonment, impo......
-
State v. Swinney
...or imprisonment or both in the discretion of the court. G.S. § 14--18; State v. Adams, 266 N.C. 406, 146 S.E.2d 505; State v. Blackmon, 260 N.C. 352, 132 S.E.2d 880; State v. Grice, 265 N.C. 587, 144 S.E.2d 659; State v. Dunn, 208 N.C. 333, 180 S.E. 708. The imprisonment, however, may not e......