State v. Martin
| Decision Date | 13 June 1973 |
| Docket Number | No. 7326SC222,7326SC222 |
| Citation | 18 N.C.App. 398,197 S.E.2d 58 |
| Parties | STATE of North Carolina v. Lynn Earl MARTIN, alias Lynn Joseph Primmer, and Robert William Padgett, alias Marty Ford. |
| Court | North Carolina Court of Appeals |
Atty. Gen. Robert Morgan, by Asst. Atty. Gen. Charles A. Lloyd, Raleigh, for the State.
Gene H. Kendall and Francis O. Clarkson, Jr., Charlotte, for defendant appellants.
In their first assignment of error defendants contend that the trial court sentenced them in such a fashion as to constitute 'cruel and unusual punishment', prohibited by the Constitutions of North Carolina and the United States. They argue that because the sentences run consecutively, it will be more difficult for defendants to obtain parole. They further contend that because these sentences vary from one to five years to eight to ten years for like offenses, the punishment was not meted out in consideration of the crime committed. We find defendants' argument without merit.
The punishment imposed upon defendants does not exceed the limits fixed by statute, and the court's authority to provide that such sentences shall run consecutively is well established. State v. Dawson, 268 N.C. 603, 151 S.E.2d 203 (1966). Such punishment is not cruel and unusual in a constitutional sense. State v. Cleaves, 4 N.C.App. 506, 166 S.E.2d 861 (1969).
Also, defendants contend that the trial judge erred in failing to recognize and enforce the solicitor's 'plea bargain' to continue prayer for judgment in their cases. Defendants' pleas of guilty were accepted on 21 March 1972 and at proceedings held 24 March 1972 defense counsel addressed the following remarks to the court on the issue of punishment:
'Mr. Kendall (to the Court)--Well about the Solicitor's office, I do want to say this. Two months ago Tom Moore told me that he would continue Prayer for Judgment in Mr. Primmer's cases. Tuesday morning when this case was called, Tom Moore in his office down the hall on this floor of this building told me, 'All right, go on down there and continue Judgment in these cases.' Now he did not somewhat reluctantly, but that is what he said. He said, 'All right, go on down there and continue Judgment on those cases.'
'The disposition of criminal charges by agreement between the prosecutor and the accused, sometimes loosely called 'plea bargaining,' is an essential component of the administration of justice.' Santobello v. New York, 404 U.S. 257, 260, 92 S.Ct. 495, 498, 30 L.Ed.2d 427, 432 (1971). In Santobello, the United States Supreme Court held that when a plea of guilty rests in any significant degree on a promise or agreement of the prosecutor, so that it can be said to be part of the inducement or consideration, such promise must be fulfilled.
Santobello involved a defendant who was indicted by the State of New York on two felony counts relating to illegal gambling. Defendant first plead not guilty as to both charges, but after negotiations with the assistant district attorney in charge of the case, he changed his plea to guilty to a lesser-included offense that would carry a maximum prison sentence of one year. The prosecution agreed to make no recommendation as to the sentence. Defendant represented to the court that his plea was voluntary. The plea was accepted, and a date for sentencing was set.
After a series of delays, defendant finally appeared for sentencing before a different trial judge. At this appearance another prosecutor replaced the former prosecutor who had negotiated the plea, and the new prosecutor recommended the maximum one-year setence based on defendant's criminal record and alleged links with organized crime.
Defendant Santobello's counsel objected on the grounds that the State had previously promised defendant before his guilty plea was entered that no sentence recommendation would be made. The presiding trial judge overruled defense counsel's objection and stated that he was not at all influenced by what the prosecutor said and that the maximum one-year sentence was justified by evidence from other sources. The Supreme Court of New York, Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed the conviction, 35 A.D.2d 1084, 316 N.Y.S.2d 194 (1970), and the defendant was denied leave to appeal to the New York Court of Appeals. On certiorari to the United States Supreme Court, the judgment was vacated and the case remanded, leaving ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Wilson, No. 7726SC686
...denied, 283 N.C. 758, 198 S.E.2d 728 (1973), rev'd in part on other grounds, 286 N.C. 265, 210 S.E.2d 396 (1974); State v. Martin, 18 N.C.App. 398, 197 S.E.2d 58 (1973). We have examined defendant's remaining assignments of error and find that they involve matters which rest largely in the ......
-
State v. Ingram
...(1969); also State v. Roberts, 18 N.C.App. 388, 197 S.E.2d 54 (1973), cert. den. 283 N.C. 758, 198 S.E.2d 728; and State v. Martin, 18 N.C.App. 398, 197 S.E.2d 58 (1973), cert. den. 283 N.C. 757, 200 S.E.2d Therefore, this case is remanded to the Superior Court of Caldwell County where the ......
-
State v. Byrd
...18 N.C.App. 388, 197 S.E.2d 54 (1973), remanded for determination of whether defendant was denied a speedy trial; State v. Martin, 18 N.C.App. 398, 197 S.E.2d 58 (1973), remanded for determination of whether there was a plea bargain; State v. Moses, 25 N.C.App. 41, 212 S.E.2d 226 (1975), an......
-
State v. Martin
...agreement with the defendant, it must be honored. Santobello v. New York, 404 U.S. 257, 92 S.Ct. 495, 30 L.Ed.2d 427 (1971); State v. Martin, 18 N.C.App. 398, 197 S.E.id 58. If the State violates such an agreement, the defendant is entitled to replead. State v. Martin, Supra. But the courts......