State v. Goff, 91
| Citation | 264 N.C. 563,142 S.E.2d 142 |
| Decision Date | 02 June 1965 |
| Docket Number | No. 91,91 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of North Carolina |
| Parties | STATE, v. Arthur GOFF. |
Atty. Gen. T. W. Bruton, Staff Atty. Andrew A. Vanore, Jr., for the State, appellant.
H. Horton Rountree, Greenville, for defendant, appellee.
The question for determination on this appeal is simply this: Did the court below commit an error in vacating the sentence imposed by the Superior Court of Sampson County for an escape while the defendant was serving a sentence which had been vacated and a new trial ordered before the sentence for the escape was imposed? We think the question must be answered in the affirmative.
G.S. § 148-45 in pertinent part reads as follows: '* * * Any prisoner serving a sentence imposed upon conviction of a felony who escapes or attempts to escape from the State prison system shall for the first such offense be guilty of a felony and, upon conviction thereof, shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than six months nor more than two years. * * *'
This Court, in State v. Garrell, 82 N.C. 580, 581, recognized the rule that one cannot take it upon himself to reverse or ignore an erroneous judgment. The prisoner was delivered to the custody of a constable, pursuant to an erroneous judgment. The constable negligently allowed the prisoner to escape. In holding the constable liable, the Court said:
'The judgment pronounced was at most merely erroneous, and not void. * * *
'The Judge may have erred in that portion of his judgment which committed Hogan to the house of correction, and we think he did, as such sentences, according to the true intent and meaning of the Constitution and statutes on that subject, extend only to vagrants and persons guilty of misdemeanors; but of that question, as of every other arising on the trial, his Honor had jurisdiction, and if he erred in that particular it was an error of law for which the judgment was voidable, but of full force and effect until reversed in the appropriate way. * * *
'* * * Hence it follows that, until the sentence of commitment to the house of correction was reversed, it was the duty of the defendant in his capacity of manager to hold and keep the prisoner committed to his custody, and not assume practically to reverse the judgment of one of the courts of the State by allowing the prisoner by his negligence to escape. * * *'
A similar result was reached in State v. Armistead, 106 N.C. 639, 10 S.E. 872.
In the case of Bayless v. United States (9th C.C.A.), 141 F.2d 578, the defendant had been convicted of several violations of federal law, and defendant had not been afforded counsel nor had he intelligently waived counsel. He was committed pursuant to the conviction and subsequently attempted to escape. The Ninth Circuit Court held that he could be convicted of an attempt to escape even though his detention was irregular in that he had not been afforded counsel. The Court quoted with approval from on opinion by the Fifth Circuit Court in the case of Aderhold v. Soileau, 5 Cir., 67 F.2d 259, as follows:
The Supreme Court of the United States denied certiorari in Bayless v. United States, 322 U.S. 748, 64 S.Ct. 1157, 88 L.Ed. 1580.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kelly v. State of North Carolina
...though the sentence he was serving at the time of the escape was irregular or voidable and was subsequently set aside. State v. Goff, 264 N.C. 563, 142 S.E.2d 142 (1965). "Exhaustion of a state procedure to a foregone conclusion is not a prerequisite to federal jurisdiction. It is well esta......
-
State v. Worsley
... ... 2301, 110 L.Ed.2d 112 (1990); Arizona v. Hicks, 480 U.S. 321, 107 S.Ct. 1149, 94 L.Ed.2d 347 (1987); Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443, 91 S.Ct. 2022, 29 L.Ed.2d 564, reh'g denied, 404 U.S. 874, 92 S.Ct. 26, 30 L.Ed.2d 120 (1971) ... The officers took the defendant ... ...
-
State v. Weaver
...was an escape from lawful custody notwithstanding the judgment was thereafter vacated in appropriate legal proceedings. State v. Goff, N.C., 142 S.E.2d 142, decided June 2, It is well established in this jurisdiction that a judgment imposing a sentence in excess of the legal limit (1) is vo......
-
Smith, In re, 798SC719
...(1947). The rule in North Carolina is that one cannot take it upon himself to reverse or ignore an erroneous judgment. State v. Goff, 264 N.C. 563, 142 S.E.2d 142 (1965). We think that Talbot Smith had a duty to appear on 3 January 1979 as ordered. At that time, or before, he could have con......