State v. White, 6825SC261
| Decision Date | 13 November 1968 |
| Docket Number | No. 6825SC261,6825SC261 |
| Citation | 164 S.E.2d 36,3 N.C.App. 31 |
| Court | North Carolina Court of Appeals |
| Parties | STATE of North Carolina v. Thomas E. WHITE. |
T. W. Bruton, Atty. Gen., William W. Melvin, Asst. Atty. Gen., and T. Buie Costen, Raleigh, Staff Atty., for the State.
Lewis E. Waddell, Jr., Newton, for defendant appellant.
The record on appeal in this case is inadequate in that no exceptions appear in the record or in the transcript and there are no exceptions supporting the assignments of error. The charge of the court is not contained in the record, and there are other deficiencies.
In Docket No. 67--CrD--13604 the date of the violation charged is Monday, the 12th of some month which is illegible. In the year 1967 the month of June was the only month that had a Monday falling on the 12th day. The evidence discloses that whatever offense the defendant committed was on Saturday, 18 November 1967, but there is nothing in the warrant in Docket No. 67--CrD--13604 that connects the defendant with any offense on Saturday, 18 November 1967. It is a rule of universal observance in the administration of criminal law that a defendant must be convicted, if convicted at all, of the particular offense charged. The allegation and proof must correspond. State v. Watson, 272 N.C. 526, 158 S.E.2d 334; State v. Sossamon, 259 N.C. 374, 130 S.E.2d 638. We hold that there is a fatal variance between the charge contained in the warrant in Docket No. 67--CrD--13604 and the evidence. This Court Ex mero motu vacates the judgment entered in Docket No. 67--CrD--13604. If a uniform traffic ticket is going to be used, care must be exercised in filling it out so that it accurately charges the offense, and the defendant will know with what he is charged.
In the other case, Docket No. 67--CrD--12734, the defendant was found guilty by the jury of reckless driving, no registration plates, and inspection violation. The trial court dismissed the charge of no registration plates. On the other two charges, as stated above, the defendant was sentenced to six months in the common jail of Catawba County to be assigned to work under the supervision of the State Department of Correction.
The defendant contends that there was error in the trial court in failing to appoint counsel to represent him. We find no merit in this contention.
State v. Bennett, 266 N.C. 755, 147 S.E.2d 237; State v. Morris, 2 N.C.App. 262, 163 S.E.2d 108.
The defendant further contends that there was error in the trial court in allowing the following testimony of Deputy Sheriff Yoder:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Broome
...375, 378 (1983). We find no plain error. To support his contention that his conviction should be vacated, Broome cites State v. White, 3 N.C.App. 31, 164 S.E.2d 36 (1968) and State v. Rush, 19 N.C.App. 109, 197 S.E.2d 891 (1973). In Rush, this Court arrested judgment against a drug offender......
-
State v. Sanchez
...At the time of the conversation Sanchez was not in custody and Miranda v. Arizona, supra, is not applicable. See State v. White, 3 N.C.App. 31, 164 S.E.2d 36 (1968), which is similar to the case at bar, and United States v. Montos, 421 F.2d 215 (5th Cir. 1970). See also State v. Carpenter, ......
-
Corum v. City of Huntsville
...ticket "so that it accurately charges the offense, and the defendant will know with what he is being charged." State v. White, 3 N.C.App. 31, 33, 164 S.E.2d 36, 39 (1968). The uniform traffic ticket in this case fails to inform the defendant "of the nature and cause of the accusation agains......
-
State v. Daye
...at all, of the particular offense charged in the bill of indictment. The allegations and the proof must correspond. State v. White, 3 N.C.App. 31, 164 S.E.2d 36; State v. Watson, 272 N.C. 526, 158 S.E.2d 334.' State v. Muskelly, 6 N.C.App. 174, 176, 169 S.E.2d 530, 532. The trial court shou......