State v. Walker
| Decision Date | 01 April 1970 |
| Docket Number | No. 7014SC49,7014SC49 |
| Citation | 7 N.C.App. 548,172 S.E.2d 881 |
| Court | North Carolina Court of Appeals |
| Parties | STATE of North Carolina v. William Alexander WALKER. |
Atty. Gen. Robert Morgan, by Staff Attorney, Dale Shepherd, Raleigh, for the State.
John C. Randall, Durham, for defendant.
The Solicitor has stipulated with defendant as follows:
Defendant argues and contends, therefore, that he is entitled to have his sentence credited with a total of 174 days represented by the time he has spent in custody in this prosecution.
The time spent in custody, as represented by stipulations 1 and 2, involve time in custody before defendant's first trial; that is, time spent in custody awaiting trial. It seems that the opinion in State v. Virgil, 276 N.C. 217, 172 S.E.2d 28, filed 30 January 1970, clearly disposes of defendant's contention. In Virgil Justice Huskins discussed State v. Weaver, 264 N.C. 681, 142 S.E.2d 633, and thereafter held: 'Thus North Carolina requires that credit be given for Time served under a previous sentence for the same conduct but holds that a defendant is not entitled to credit for time spent in custody while awaiting trial.'
Defendant argues that nevertheless he is entitled to credit for the time spent in custody, without privilege of bond, during his sixty day commitment to Cherry Hospital for mental evaluation. We perceive no reason why defendant is entitled to credit for time under such commitment any more than a defendant confined, without privilege of bond, on a capital felony charge; such was the situation in Virgil. Defendant has cited to us the case of Cephus v. United States decided in 1967 by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia (128 U.S.App.D.C. 366, 389 F.2d 317), as supporting his contention that he is entitled to credit for time spent under commitment for mental evaluation. If it should be conceded that the federal court grounded its order on what it conceived to be a constitutional requirement, nevertheless we adhere to the reasoning and holding of the Supreme Court of North Carolina.
Defendant's contention with respect to the time spent in custody pending the appeal of his first conviction, as reflected by the third stipulation set out above, is likewise disposed of by the holding in Virgil, supra. Defendant was in custody from 20 November 1968, the date of his first conviction, until 4 February 1969, at which time he was able to post the required appearance bond. The only statutory requirement in North Carolina that a defendant be given credit for time spent in custody pending...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Parker v. Bounds
...Carolina case law makes state proceedings ineffective. See, State v. Virgil, 276 N.C. 217, 172 S.E. 2d 28 (1970); State v. Walker, 7 N.C. App. 548, 172 S.E.2d 881 (1970). Thus the only question presented to this court is whether one is constitutionally entitled to credit for time spent in j......
-
State v. Walker
...1970, following certification to Durham Superior Court of the decision of the Court of Appeals filed 1 April 1970 and reported in 7 N.C.App. 548, 172 S.E.2d 881, defendant's status was that of a person under indictment awaiting trial in default of bond and not that of a prisoner serving a s......
-
Arsad v. Henry, Civ. A. No. 2276-Re.
...same allegations made here by the petitioner and rejected them. State v. Virgil, 276 N.C. 217, 172 S.E.2d 28 (1970); State v. Walker, 7 N.C.App. 548, 172 S.E.2d 881 (1970). It would be a meaningless gesture to require the petitioner to litigate in the North Carolina courts the contentions w......
-
Pinyatello v. State
...of the Supreme Court of North Carolina, and the holdings of the North Carolina Court of Appeals in the case of State v. Walker, 7 N.C.App. 548, 172 S.E.2d 881 (1970), aff'd, 277 N.C. 403, 177 S.E.2d 868, and State v. Lewis, 7 N.C.App. 178, 171 S.E.2d 793 (1970), should be followed and that ......