State v. Tinsley, 75
| Decision Date | 13 October 1971 |
| Docket Number | No. 75,75 |
| Citation | 183 S.E.2d 669,279 N.C. 482 |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | STATE of North Carolina v. John Henry TINSLEY. |
Robert Morgan, Atty. Gen., by R. S. Weathers, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
John D. Church, Shelby, for defendant appellant.
In the present condition of the record, the only question of law or legal inference presented is whether error of law appears upon the face of the record proper. State v. Dawson, 268 N.C. 603, 151 S.E.2d 203; Strong's North Carolina Index, 2d, Vol. 3, Criminal Law, XII. Appeal and Error, § 146, p. 87.
Careful review shows a valid indictment, the presence of the defendant before the court represented by counsel and a valid plea of guilty entered after extended inquiry. Error is neither shown nor suggested by anything that appears upon the face of the record. Ordinarily, in criminal cases the record proper consists of (1) the organization of the court, (2) the charge (information, warrant or indictment), (3) the arraignment and plea, (4) the verdict, and (5) the judgment.
This case fits the pattern described in State v. Darnell, 266 N.C. 640, 146 S.E.2d 800: 'This case is a fair example of the manner in which that unlimited right (of appeal) is now being perverted at the whim of those who have nothing to lose. An indigent defendant has only to say 'I appeal,' and the county is required to furnish him with counsel, 'transcript and records * * * for * * * appellate review. " In all likelihood, some 'prison lawyer' has advised the defendant that his having been tried on the robbery charge which constituted an essential element of his first degree burglary charge, he is now shielded from the capital offense and has nothing to lose by the appeal. State v. Birckhead, 256 N.C. 494, 124 S.E.2d 838; State v. Bell, 205 N.C. 225, 171 S.E. 50.
A careful review of the record proper fails to disclose either error of law or of legal inference.
No error.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Gaines
...I.e., the information, warrant or indictment, (3) the arraignment and plea, (4) the verdict, and (5) the judgment. State v. Tinsley, 279 N.C. 482, 183 S.E.2d 669 (1971). Thus, defendant's motion in arrest of judgment was properly denied. If he wished to object to the composition of the gran......
-
State v. Hudson, 15
...(1966); State v. Jackson, 279 N.C. 503, 183 S.E.2d 550 (1971). An examination of the record proper reveals no error. State v. Tinsley, 279 N.C. 482, 183 S.E.2d 669 (1971). Consideration of the assignment on its merits, however, leads to the same result. Admission of defendant's inculpatory ......
-
State v. Russell
...charge (information, warrant or indictment), (3) the arraignment and plea, (4) the verdict, and (5) the judgment.' State v. Tinsley, 279 N.C. 482, 183 S.E.2d 669 (1971). The Court of Appeals examined the record proper and found no error. Chief Judge Mallard dissented on the grounds that in ......
-
State v. Armstrong
...arraignment and plea, (4) the verdict, and (5) the judgment. State v. McClain, 282 N.C. 357, 193 S.E.2d 108 (1972); State v. Tinsley, 279 N.C. 482, 183 S.E.2d 669 (1971). Here, the face of the record proper reveals no fatal defect, and denial of defendant's motion in arrest of judgment was ......