State v. Ford

Decision Date20 November 1984
Docket NumberNo. 8412SC185,8412SC185
Citation322 S.E.2d 431,71 N.C.App. 452
PartiesSTATE of North Carolina v. Victor Lee FORD, Jr.
CourtNorth Carolina Court of Appeals

Att. Gen. Rufus L. Edmisten by Associate Atty. Gen. Barbara Peters Riley, Raleigh, for the State.

Appellate Defender Adam Stein by Asst. Appellate Defender Malcolm Ray Hunter, Jr., Raleigh, for defendant-appellant.

PHILLIPS, Judge.

G.S. 14-56.1 provides that one who breaks or enters a coin-operated machine with the intent to steal any property therein shall be guilty of a general misdemeanor unless he has been convicted of violating the statute before, in which case the offense is a Class H felony. The primary indictment charging defendant with two violations of this statute was supplemented by a special indictment in accord with G.S. 15A-928, alleging that he had been convicted of the same offense on three prior occasions. The defendant's convictions under the primary indictment are not contested by this appeal; the only question presented is whether the crimes he was convicted of were felonies, as the court ruled, or misdemeanors, as defendant contends. Defendant's contention is based on the State's alleged failure to prove that defendant had been convicted of the same offenses before. But the State did not have to prove the prior convictions, because the defendant and his lawyer stipulated to them in open court. State v. Powell, 254 N.C. 231, 118 S.E.2d 617 (1961). Immediately before the trial began, as the record shows, defendant's counsel stipulated that the special indictment's allegation that defendant had been convicted of breaking into coin-operated machines on three earlier occasions, as specified therein, was correct; after which the court discussed the implications of the stipulation and asked defendant if he understood and agreed to it, and defendant answered, "Yes, sir" to both questions.

The procedure followed with respect to the prior convictions was authorized by G.S. 15A-928, and defendant's contention that the stipulation was ineffective because it was not made "after commencement of the trial and before the close of the State's case," as that statute provides, is without merit. The purpose of that statute, which is for the benefit of defendants charged with prior convictions, is not to require that the procedures referred to therein be accomplished at a certain time and no other, which would be pointless. Its purpose is to insure that defendants are informed of the prior...

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 cases
  • State v. Brice
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of North Carolina
    • 3 d5 Novembro d5 2017
    ...379, 385 (1980) (citations omitted).The statutory scheme created in N.C.G.S. § 15A-928 serves two important purposes. State v. Ford , 71 N.C. App. 452, 454, 322 S.E.2d 431, 432 (1984) (stating that the "purpose of [ N.C.G.S. § 15A-928 ] is to insure that defendants are informed of the prior......
  • State v. Anderson, No. COA04-891 (NC 6/7/2005)
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of North Carolina
    • 7 d2 Junho d2 2005
    ...the State intends to use and is given a fair opportunity to either admit or deny them or remain silent. State v. Ford, 71 N.C. App. 452, 454, 322 S.E.2d 431, 432 (1984). This purpose is analogous to that of N.C.G.S. § 15A-941 (Cum. Supp. 1994), the general arraignment statute. Under that st......
  • State v. Jernigan, 945SC286
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of North Carolina (US)
    • 21 d2 Março d2 1995
    ...the State intends to use and is given a fair opportunity to either admit or deny them or remain silent. State v. Ford, 71 N.C.App. 452, 454, 322 S.E.2d 431, 432 (1984). This purpose is analogous to that of N.C.G.S. § 15A-941 (Cum.Supp.1994), the general arraignment statute. Under that statu......
  • State v. Hairston
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of North Carolina (US)
    • 7 d2 Maio d2 2013
    ...do so if the prior convictions are admitted.”188 N.C.App. at 291–92, 655 S.E.2d at 439 (emphasis added) (quoting State v. Ford, 71 N.C.App. 452, 454, 322 S.E.2d 431, 432 (1984)). This reasoning suggests that the fact the amendment in this case occurred after the jury was impaneled is immate......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT