State v. Sullivan

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided November 23, 1966

Supreme Court of North Carolina · decided 1966-11-23

Cited by 4 later decisions — most recently June 2012

2 federal appellate · 2 state decisions

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“"The defendant's sole exception is that he did not receive a fair and impartial trial before a fair tribunal. In support of his claim he quotes the presiding judge at the time of sentencing him: `North Carolina has been made a picking place for criminals from Maryland. They are riding down here regularly from Maryland, robbing people who are trying to make an honest living. I find this true in about every court I hold.' "This Court does not intend to restrict informal remarks made by a judge at the time of pronouncing judgment, but there is nothing in Judge Burgwyn's statement to justify the defendant's exception, even though he be a resident of Maryland. "The undisputed facts in the cases, plus the defendant's plea of guilty in both, justified a substantial sentence. The fact that the court imposed only a 5-year sentence when a total of 40 years imprisonment was permissible, refutes his claim that he was not treated fairly. "No error."”

quoted by 1 later decision, including State v. Swinney

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1966-11-23

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Per Curiam.

¶1The defendant’s sole exception is that he did not receive a fair and impartial trial before a fair tribunal. In support of his claim he quotes the presiding judge at the time of sentencing him: “North Carolina has been made a picking place for criminals from Maryland. They are riding down here regularly from Maryland, robbing people who are trying to make an honest living. I find this true in about every court I hold.”

¶2This Court does not intend to restrict informal remarks made by a judge at the time of pronouncing judgment, but there is nothing in Judge Burgwyn’s statements to justify the defendant’s exception, even though he be a resident of Maryland.

¶3The undisputed facts in the cases, plus the defendant’s plea of guilty in both, justified a substantial sentence. The fact that the court imposed only a 5-year sentence when a total of 40 years imprisonment was permissible, refutes his claim that he was not treated fairly.

¶4No error.