Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

268 N.C. 447

150 S.E.2d 781

State v. Thompson

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided November 2, 1966

Supreme Court of North Carolina · decided 1966-11-02

Relies on State v. Austin · State v. Blackmon

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1966-11-02

How this case has been cited

Cited by 6 later decisions — most recently June 2007

1 federal appellate · 4 state decisions

3019661970198019902000decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Per Curiam.

¶1 Thompson does not attack the judgment in No. 19069-A. The sentence imposed thereby is authorized by G.S. 14-22.

¶2 Chapter 621, Session Laws of 1965, in full force and effect from and after its ratification on May 19, 1965, amended G.S. 14-177 so as to read as follows: “Crime Against Nature. If any person shall commit the crime against nature, with mankind or beast, he shall be guilty of a felony, and shall be fined or imprisoned in the discretion of the court.”

¶3 In S. v. Blackmon, 260 N.C. 352, 132 S.E. 2d 880, it was held that a statute (G.S. 14-55) prescribing punishment “by fine or imprisonment in the State’s prison, or both, in the discretion of the court,” did not prescribe “specific punishment” within the meaning of that term as used in G.S. 14-2. Where a person is convicted of any felony “for which no specific punishment is prescribed by statute,” the maximum lawful term of imprisonment is ten years. G.S. 14-2. Hence, the sentence imposed by the judgment in No. 19069, to wit, imprisonment for a term of not less than eighteen nor more than twenty years, substantially exceeds the maximum lawful sentence.

¶4 “It is the general rule in this jurisdiction that where a defendant has been properly convicted but given a sentence in excess of that authorized by law, and comes to this Court pursuant to a pe *449 tition for writ of certiorari in a habeas corpus proceeding, when such defendant has not served as long under the sentence as he might have been legally imprisoned, we vacate the improper judgment and remand for proper sentence. In such case, the defendant should be given credit for the time served under the vacated judgment.” S. v. Austin, 241 N.C. 548, 550, 85 S.E. 2d 924, 926.

¶5 In Case No. 19069, the crime against nature case, the said judgment is vacated, and the cause is remanded to the Superior Court of Robeson County for judgment imposing a proper sentence, Thompson to be given credit thereon for the time served under the vacated judgment.

¶6 The sentence of not less than five nor more than seven years imposed by the judgment pronounced in Case No. 19069-A will commence, as provided therein, at the expiration of the sentence imposed by the (new) judgment (hereafter) pronounced in Case No. 19069 as directed in this opinion.

¶7 The Clerk shall forward a certified copy of this opinion to each of the following: (1) The Clerk of the Superior Court of Robeson County; (2) the North Carolina Prison Department; and (3) Thompson.

¶8 Judgment in No. 19069 vacated, and cause remanded for proper judgment in that case.

/268/nc/447 · .json · Public domain