Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

270 N.C. 299

State v. Wilson

Supreme Court of North Carolina · decided 1967-05-03

Cited by 4 later decisions — most recently February 1969

4 state decisions

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

““The sentences imposed by the court do not exceed the statutory maximum. G.S. 14-2, G.S. 14-54, G.S. 14-70 and G.S. 14-72; State v. Cooper, 256 N.C. 372 , 124 S.E. 2d 91 . When punishment does not exceed the limits fixed by the statute, it cannot be considered cruel and unusual punishment in a constitutional sense.’ State v. Davis, 267 N.C. 126 , 147 S.E. 2d 570 ; State v. Bruce, 268 N.C. 174 , 150 S.E. 2d 216 ; State v. Daniels, 197 N.C. 285 , 148 S.E. 244 .””

quoted by 1 later decision, including 4 N.C. App. 109 - State v. Reed

Relies on State v. Bruce · State v. Cooper · State v. Davis

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1967-05-03

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Per Curiam.

¶1The two questions presented for review are:

1. Was the sentence of ten years imposed in this case upon the defendant’s plea of guilty to breaking and entering “cruel and unusual punishment” within the prohibition of the Eighth Amendment to the Federal Constitution?
2. Was thé sentence of ten years imposed in this case upon the defendant’s plea of guilty to larceny of property of a value of more than two hundred dollars, to run consecutive to the *301sentence in the breaking and entering case, “cruel and unusual punishment” within the prohibition of the Eighth Amendment to the Federal Constitution?

¶2The sentences imposed by the court do not exceed the statutory maximum. G.S. 14-2, G.S. 14-54, G.S. 14-70 and G.S. 14-72; State v. Cooper, 256 N.C. 372, 124 S.E. 2d 91. “When punishment does not exceed the limits fixed by the statute, it cannot be considered cruel and unusual punishment in a constitutional sense.” State v. Davis, 267 N.C. 126, 147 S.E. 2d 570; State v. Bruce, 268 N.C. 174, 150 S.E. 2d 216; State v. Daniels, 197 N.C. 285, 148 S.E. 244.

¶3Defendant was represented by court-appointed counsel and aware of the sentences that could be imposed on him upon his pleas of guilty. He intelligently, understandingly and intentionally pleaded guilty as charged to two counts of the bill of indictment.

¶4We find no violations of defendant’s constitutional rights and no error appears on the face of the record proper.

¶5No error.

/270/nc/299 · .json · Public domain