State v. Turner, 7028SC280

Citation8 N.C.App. 541,174 S.E.2d 863
Decision Date24 June 1970
Docket NumberNo. 7028SC280,7028SC280
PartiesSTATE of North Carolina v. Herman Eugene TURNER.
CourtNorth Carolina Court of Appeals

Atty. Gen. Robert Morgan, by Staff Atty. L. Phillip Covington, Raleigh, for the State.

Scott N. Brown, Jr., VanWinkle, Buck, Wall, Starnes & Hyde, Asheville, for defendant appellant.

MORRIS, Judge.

Defendant contends in his first assignment of error that 'concurrent' means 'contemporaneous with and equal in duration', that a five-year sentence cannot be concurrent with a sentence of 18 to 24 months, that such a sentence is ambiguous and therefore he should not serve any longer than the sentences he was serving at the time the five-year sentence was imposed. He also contends that under In re Parker, 225 N.C. 369, 35 S.E.2d 169 (1945), the judgment is insufficient for vagueness because it referred to sentences then being served by defendant which were incapable of accurate computation without reference to matters dehors the record. These contentions are without merit and are overruled. Though similar to defendant's first contention, In re Parker, supra, is not in point as the question there was whether the sentence imposed was to run concurrently or consecutively, it not being clear from the judgment. The Court held that if the judgment did not make it perfectly clear that the sentence being imposed was to run at the expiration of any sentences presently being served, then the defendant would be given the benefit of the doubt and the sentence would begin immediately. As a result of that holding the defendant in Parker was discharged because he had served the period of the sentence imposed by the judgment in question while serving an earlier sentence. In the case at bar the court specifically stated that the sentence was to run concurrently with those acknowledged by defendant. Indeed, the court was granting defendant's own request that the sentence, if any, run concurrently. It must be pointed out that the two sentences in Parker were not of equal duration. To sustain defendant's contention that concurrent sentences must be construed to end with a prior but shorter sentence would obviously result in the abandonment of the use of concurrent sentencing procedures and consequently work to the detriment of all persons who may be sentenced for commission of a crime while serving other sentences. Defendant's second contention fails to consider the fact that the five-year sentence is longer than those acknowledged by defendant and will consequently exceed the prior sentences. The specificity requirements of Parker do not apply because the five-year sentence is to begin immediately and is...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 cases
  • State v. Rozier, 8316SC528
    • United States
    • North Carolina Court of Appeals
    • June 19, 1984
    ...omission orally. It is well established that failure to move to quash waives the defect in the indictment. See e.g., State v. Turner, 8 N.C.App. 541, 174 S.E.2d 863 (1970). By failing to move to quash for the alleged omission defendant Carter waived the defect; moreover, by joining in defen......
  • State v. Kelly
    • United States
    • North Carolina Court of Appeals
    • February 23, 1972
    ...N.C. 548, 144 S.E.2d 581; State v. Best, 265 N.C. 477, 144 S.E.2d 416; State v. Thompson, 257 N.C. 452, 126 S.E.2d 58; State v. Turner, 8 N.C.App. 541, 174 S.E.2d 863; Blakeney v. State, 2 N.C.App. 312, 163 S.E.2d While this case was on appeal to this Court, the Act of the 1971 General Asse......
  • Burgess v. Griffin
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Western District of North Carolina
    • May 10, 1984
    ...State v. Kelly, 13 N.C. App. 588, 186 S.E.2d 631 (1972), rev'd on other grounds, 281 N.C. 618, 189 S.E.2d 163; State v. Turner, 8 N.C.App. 541, 174 S.E.2d 863 (1970). See also State v. Best, 265 N.C. 477, 144 S.E.2d 416 (1965); State v. Williamson, 250 N.C. 204, 108 S.E.2d 443 (1959); State......
  • State v. Speckman
    • United States
    • North Carolina Court of Appeals
    • December 20, 1988
    ...pronounced thereon will be upheld." Meshaw, supra, 246 N.C. at 209-210, 98 S.E.2d at 16 (Emphasis in the original); State v. Turner, 8 N.C.App. 541, 174 S.E.2d 863 (1970). It is considered to be "immaterial" as to which mutually exclusive count the guilty verdict pertains. Meshaw, supra 246......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT