State v. Thompson, 821
| Decision Date | 02 November 1966 |
| Docket Number | No. 821,821 |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | STATE v. R. D. THOMPSON. |
Atty. Gen., T. W. Bruton and Staff Atty., Ralph White, for the State.
R. D. Thompson in pro. per.
Thompson does not attack the judgment in No. 19069--A. The sentence imposed thereby is authorized by G.S. § 14--22.
Chapter 621, Session Laws of 1965, in full force and effect from and after its ratification on May 19, 1965, amended G.S. § 14--177 so as to read as follows:
In State v. Blackmon, 260 N.C. 352, 132 S.E.2d 880, it was held that a statute (G.S. § 14--55) prescribing punishment 'by fine or imprisonment in the State's prison, or both, in the discretion of the court,' did not prescribe 'specific punishment' within the meaning of that term as used in G.S. § 14--2. Where a person is convicted of any felony 'for which no specific punishment is prescribed by statute,' the maximum lawful term of imprisonment is ten years. G.S. § 14--2. Hence, the sentence imposed by the judgment in No. 19069, to wit, imprisonment for a term of not less than eighteen nor more than twenty years, substantially exceeds the maximum lawful sentence.
State v. Austin, 241 N.C. 548, 550, 85 S.E.2d 924, 926.
In Case No. 19069, the crime against nature case, the said judgment is vacated, and the cause is remanded to the Superior Court of Robeson County for judgment imposing a proper sentence, Thompson to be given credit thereon for the time served under the vacated judgment.
The sentence of not less than five nor more than seven years imposed by the judgment pronounced in Case No. 19069--A will commence, as provided therein, at the expiration of the sentence imposed by the (new) judgment (hereafter) pronounced in Case No. 19069 as...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Mitchell
...N.C. 571, 122 S.E.2d 355 (1961). Crime against nature may be punishable by ten years' imprisonment. G.S. § 14--177; State v. Thompson, 268 N.C. 447, 150 S.E.2d 781 (1966). Therefore, the punishment imposed in each of the present cases was within statutory limits. This Court has consistently......
-
State v. Bullock
...therein, at the expiration of the sentence imposed by the (new) judgment [in the case remanded for resentencing]." 268 N.C. 447, 449, 150 S.E.2d 781, 782, (1966). Since we find no inherent defect in the 15 July 2003 judgment necessitating amendment, we affirm the judgment ordering defendant......
-
Anders v. Turner
...Supreme Court has routinely allowed credit for time served in jail pending disposition of an appeal. See, e.g., State v. Thompson, 268 N.C. 447, 150 S.E.2d 781 (1966); State v. Adams, 266 N.C. 406, 146 S.E.2d 505 (1966). But cf. State v. Weaver, 264 N.C. 681, 142 S.E.2d 633 Decision of this......
-
Thompson v. Turner, Civ. No. 1998.
...did not attack the judgment in 19069-A for rape. The mandate of the Supreme Court was filed November 2, 1966, in State v. Thompson, 268 N.C. 447, 150 S.E.2d 781. Meanwhile, petitioner had filed a petition for a post-conviction hearing in the Superior Court of Robeson County in October 1966,......