State v. Thompson, 6814SC333
| Decision Date | 09 October 1968 |
| Docket Number | No. 6814SC333,6814SC333 |
| Citation | 163 S.E.2d 410,2 N.C.App. 508 |
| Court | North Carolina Court of Appeals |
| Parties | STATE of North Carolina v. Hubert THOMPSON. |
T. W. Bruton, Atty. Gen., and George A. Goodwyn, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
W. Paul Pulley, Jr., Durham, for defendant appellant.
Except as provided in Article 22, Chapter 7A, of the General Statutes, the district court has original, exclusive jurisdiction for the trial of criminal actions below the grade of felony, and the same are declared by the Legislature to be petty misdemeansors. G.S. § 7A--272. The offense with which defendant was here charged comes within the classification for the trial of which the district court has exclusive original jurisdiction. Therefore, the jurisdiction of the superior court on appeal to it from the judgment of the district court was entirely derivative, State v. White, 246 N.C. 587, 99 S.E.2d 772. Upon appeal to superior court, trial shall be De novo, with jury trial as provided by law, G.S. § 7A--196(b), G.S. § 7A--288, and without prejudice from the former proceedings of the court below, irrespective of the plea entered or the judgment pronounced thereon. G.S. § 15--177.1. In the superior court the defendant may be tried upon the original accusation of the district court and without an indictment by a grand jury, State v. Thomas, 236 N.C. 454, 73 S.E.2d 283. Since the trial in the superior court is without regard to the proceedings in the district court, the judge of the superior court is necessarily required to exercise his own independent judgment, and hence his sentence may be lighter or heavier than that imposed by the district court, provided, of course, it does not exceed the limit of punishment which the district court could have imposed, State v. Meadows, 234 N.C. 657, 68 S.E.2d 406. In the present case the maximum punishment which could have been imposed upon the defendant upon conviction of the offense for which he was tried in the district court would have been a fine of not more than $100.00 or imprisonment for not more than six months or by both such fine and imprisonment. G.S. § 14--72.1. Manifestly, therefore, the twelve months sentence imposed by the district court judge was excessive. Upon appeal, the judge of superior court allowed the State, over defendant's objection, to amend the warrant so as to charge the defendant with a second offense of shoplifting, under the provisions of the second paragraph of G.S. § 14--72.1 which is as follows:
'Any person found guilty of a second or subsequent offense of willful concealment of goods as defined in the first paragraph of this section shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and shall be punished in the discretion of the court.'
If the amendment was properly allowed then the judgment as originally entered by the judge of superior court imposing a sentence of not less than 21 months nor more than 24 months would have been lawful. G.S. § 14--3(a). However, since the district court had exclusive original jurisdiction for the trial of criminal cases for the offense here involved, and since the jurisdiction acquired by the superior court upon appeal was entirely derivative, the superior court lacked power to allow amendment to the warrant so as to charge the defendant with a different offense from that for which he was tried in the district court. State v. White, supra. As a general proposition the superior court, on an appeal from an inferior court upon a conviction of a misdemeanor, has power to allow an amendment to the warrant, provided the charge as amended does not change the offense with which defendant was originally charged. State v. Fenner, 263 N.C. 694, 140 S.E.2d 349; State v. Wilson, 227 N.C. 43, 40 S.E.2d 449. In the present case, however, the amendment to the warrant did substantially change the offense with which defendant was charged. To convict defendant of the offense charged in the amended warrant it was necessary for the State not only to allege in the warrant but to offer evidence to prove the facts showing that the offense charged was the commission of a second or...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State Carolina v. Petty
...as to charge an offense different from that for which Defendant was convicted in the District Court division, State v. Thompson, 2 N.C.App. 508, 511–12, 163 S.E.2d 410, 412 (1968). Thus, “[u]ntil defendant [is] tried and convicted in district court and [has] appealed to superior court for t......
-
State v. Wesson
...on appeal from a conviction in district court is derivative. State v. Wall, 271 N.C. 675, 157 S.E.2d 363 (1967); State v. Thompson, 2 N.C.App. 508, 163 S.E.2d 410 (1968). Defendant may not be tried de novo in the superior court on the original warrant without a trial and conviction in the d......
-
U.S. v. Martin
...de novo, without incurring any prejudice, or even effect, from the district court proceeding. See § 15A-1431(b); State v. Thompson, 2 N.C.App. 508, 163 S.E.2d 410, 412 (1968); cf. State v. Ferrell, 75 N.C.App. 156, 330 S.E.2d 225, 226-27 (N.C.Ct.App.1985) (holding that a superior court "com......
-
State v. Truesdale
...to read 'property of James Cathey, Jr. and Robert M. Sauls, Trading as Man-Trap Wigs.' Judge Parker has said in State v. Thompson, 2 N.C.App. 508, 163 S.E.2d 410 (1968), 'As a general proposition the superior court, on an appeal from an inferior court upon a conviction of a misdemeanor, has......