State v. Driver, No. 653
| Docket Nº | No. 653 |
| Citation | 136 S.E.2d 208, 262 N.C. 92 |
| Case Date | May 20, 1964 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of North Carolina |
Page 208
v.
Joe B. DRIVER.
T. W. Bruton, Atty. Gen., Harry W. McGalliard, Deputy Atty. Gen., for the State.
Brannon & Read, by Anthony M. Brannon, Durham, for defendant appellant.
PER CURIAM:
The court-appointed counsel advanced this argument: 'The present defendant is an alcoholic and this fact is acknowledged by all who have come into contact with him, from the arresting officer to the Court which sentenced him. This alcoholism, while not the reason for his imprisonment, is certainly the cause of it. His addiction has put him in jail. Yet he has not been assigned to a medical rehabilitation center but sent to the roads. As an impoverished inmate he cannot obtain outside medical aid. So for two years the State of North Carolina impounds the defendant, an acknowledgedly ill man, beyond the reach of medical and psychological treatment. Such imprisonment without treatment is certainly Cruel and Unusual Punishment.'
[262 N.C. 93] The sentences imposed are authorized by G.S. § 14-335(12), 1963 Cumulative Supplement, Vol. B-1. Undoubtedly, the Legislature may require the courts to take into account in fixing punishment the persistence of an accused in a course of criminal conduct. The prison authorities provide medical treatment for prisoners during their confinement. The argument of defense counsel in other matters addresses itself more properly to society and other agencies of government rather than to the criminal courts. The defendant's motion in arrest of judgment is denied. Defendant's attorney of record consents to the motion of the Attorney General suggesting diminution of the record. The motion is allowed.
No error.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Patton v. State of North Carolina, No. 11005.
...obtaining a new trial must be deemed to have consented to a wiping out of all the consequences of the first trial."5 262 N.C. at 56, 136 S.E.2d at 208 (Emphasis The principle of fair dealing which impels judges in passing sentence to take into account the time a defendant was deprived of hi......
-
Patton v. State of North Carolina, Civ. No. 2397.
...of the court was that the petitioner was "deemed to have consented to a wiping out of all the consequences of the first trial," Id. 136 S.E.2d 208, including verdict, judgment, and sentence. Therefore, the court said he was not entitled, as a matter of law, to credit against the second sent......
-
Driver v. Hinnant, Civ. No. 1639.
...months' period such offense is declared a misdemeanor, punishable as a misdemeanor within the discretion of the court." 2 State v. Driver, 262 N.C. 92, 136 S.E.2d 208 (1964). The court said: "Undoubtedly, the Legislature may require the courts to take into account in fixing punishment the p......
-
State v. Pardon, No. 418
...permitted for misdemeanors, was not cruel and unusual punishment. State v. Robinson, 271 N.C. 448, 156 S.E.2d 854; State v. Driver, 262 N.C. 92, 136 S.E.2d 208; State v. Farrington, 141 N.C. 844, 53 S.E. 954. While the appeal in this case was pending, however, the legislature by Chapter 125......
-
Patton v. State of North Carolina, No. 11005.
...obtaining a new trial must be deemed to have consented to a wiping out of all the consequences of the first trial."5 262 N.C. at 56, 136 S.E.2d at 208 (Emphasis The principle of fair dealing which impels judges in passing sentence to take into account the time a defendant was deprived of hi......
-
Patton v. State of North Carolina, Civ. No. 2397.
...of the court was that the petitioner was "deemed to have consented to a wiping out of all the consequences of the first trial," Id. 136 S.E.2d 208, including verdict, judgment, and sentence. Therefore, the court said he was not entitled, as a matter of law, to credit against the second sent......
-
Driver v. Hinnant, Civ. No. 1639.
...months' period such offense is declared a misdemeanor, punishable as a misdemeanor within the discretion of the court." 2 State v. Driver, 262 N.C. 92, 136 S.E.2d 208 (1964). The court said: "Undoubtedly, the Legislature may require the courts to take into account in fixing punishment the p......
-
State v. Pardon, No. 418
...permitted for misdemeanors, was not cruel and unusual punishment. State v. Robinson, 271 N.C. 448, 156 S.E.2d 854; State v. Driver, 262 N.C. 92, 136 S.E.2d 208; State v. Farrington, 141 N.C. 844, 53 S.E. 954. While the appeal in this case was pending, however, the legislature by Chapter 125......