State v. Davis, 498
| Decision Date | 20 April 1966 |
| Docket Number | No. 498,498 |
| Citation | 267 N.C. 126,147 S.E.2d 570 |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | STATE, v. Ollie Melvin DAVIS. |
Atty. Gen. T. W. Bruton and staff Atty. Theodore C. Brown, Jr., Raleigh, for the State.
Sheldon L. Fogel, Johnson, Gamble & Hollowell, Raleigh, for defendant appellant.
Defendant has one assignment of error that the judgment of imprisonment of the court on each count of each bill of indictment was excessive, and violates the constitutional prohibition against cruel or unusual punishment. A violation of G.S. § 14--119 is a felony, and the statute provides that the punishment shall be imprisonment for not less than four months nor more than ten years, or by a fine in the discretion of the court. A violation of G.S. § 14--120 is a felony, and the statute provides that the person so offending shall be imprisoned for not less than four months nor more than ten years. A violation of G.S. § 14--54 is a felony, and the statute provides for a violation thereof imprisonment for a term of not less than four months nor more than ten years. When punishment does not exceed the limits fixed by the statute, it cannot be considered cruel and unusual punishment in a constitutional sense. State v. Stubbs, 266 N.C. 295, 145 S.E.2d 899; State v. Whaley, 263 N.C. 824, 140 S.E.2d 305; State v. Welch, 232 N.C. 77, 59 S.E.2d 199; State v. Stansbury, 230 N.C. 589, 55 S.E.2d 185.
Defendant further contends in his brief as follows: The sentences imposed on the forgery and uttering charges in the three indictments are excessive in view of the relatively small amounts of the checks involved. The General Statutes of North Carolina divide the crime of larceny into two degrees, one a misdemeanor, where the larceny or receiving of stolen goods is of a value of less than $200, and that in the case of forgery or uttering an analogy should be drawn; and that, in view of G.S. § 14--72 dividing larceny into two degrees, punishment for forgery of a sum less than $200 should likewise be considered as a misdemeanor. This contention is untenable, for the very simple reason that the Court has no power to amend an Act of the General Assembly.
The second count in case No. 11751, to which defendant pleaded guilty, charges simply the larceny of certain designated personal property of the value of $129 and does not specify the name of the owner. The plea of guilty to this count was a plea of guilty to a misdemeanor. State v. Cooper, 256 N.C. 372, 124...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Rogers, 20
...does not exceed the limits fixed by statute it cannot be classified as cruel and unusual in a constitutional sense (State v. Davis, 267 N.C. 126, 147 S.E.2d 570; State v. Bruce, 268 N.C. 174, 150 S.E.2d 216; State v. Greer, 270 N.C. 143, 153 S.E.2d 849), unless the punishment provisions of ......
-
State v. Atkinson, No. 2
...and unusual in a constitution-absense, unless the punishment provisions of the statute itself are unconstitutional. State v. Davis, 267 N.C. 126, 147 S.E.2d 570 (1966); State v. Bruce, 268 N.C. 174, 150 S.E.2d 216 (1966); State v. Greer, 270 N.C. 143, 153 S.E.2d 849 (1967); State v. Robinso......
-
State v. Sweezy
...179 S.E.2d 404; State v. Rogers, 275 N.C. 411, 168 S.E.2d 345, Cert. denied, 396 U.S. 1024, 90 S.Ct. 599, 24 L.Ed.2d 518; State v. Davis, 267 N.C. 126, 147 S.E.2d 570. However in Woodson v. North Carolina, 428 U.S. 280, 96 S.Ct. 2978, 49 L.Ed.2d 944, the United States Supreme Court held tha......
-
State v. Barber, 16
...275 N.C. 411, 168 S.E.2d 345; State v. Greer, 270 N.C. 143, 153 S.E.2d 849; State v. Bruce, 268 N.C. 174, 150 S.E.2d 216; State v. Davis, 267 N.C. 126, 147 S.E.2d 570. In Trop v. Dulles, 356 U.S. 86, 78 S.Ct. 590, 2 L.Ed.2d 630 (1958), the Supreme Court of the United States said: 'Whatever ......