Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

4 N.C. App. 302

State v. Kotofsky

Court of Appeals of North Carolina · decided 1969-04-02

Cited by 2 later decisions — most recently August 1969

2 state decisions

Relies on State v. Bruce · 1 N.C. App. 142 - State v. Burgess · State v. Parrish

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1969-04-02

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Britt, J.

¶1Following the trial in superior court, defendant’s present counsel was appointed to represent him in this court. In his brief, he brings forward three assignments of error.

¶2After judgment was imposed in superior court defendant’s counsel moved that the judgment be arrested, contending that the bill of indictment, containing two counts against defendant, was defective. In his brief, counsel reviews the statutes and Supreme Court *303decisions relating to armed robbery and kidnapping and then concludes that after a careful study of the law he can find no authority to support his assignments of error pertaining to the bill of indictment.

¶3In his third assignment of error, defendant’s counsel contends that the sentence imposed by the trial judge was excessive and violated the constitutional provisions against cruel and unusual punishment. In State v. Kelly, 3 N.C. App. 72, 164 S.E. 2d 22, in an opinion by Morris, J., this court held:

" 'pjjjg Qourt and the Supreme Court of North Carolina have held repeatedly that a sentence within the statutory limits is not excessive, nor does it constitute cruel and unusual punishment. State v. Burgess, 1 N.C. App. 142, 160 S.E. 2d 105; State v. Chapman, 1 N.C. App. 622, 162 S.E. 2d 142; State v. Bruce, 268 N.C. 174, 150 S.E. 2d 216; State v. Parrish, 273 N.C. 477, 160 S.E. 2d 153.”

¶4The sentence imposed by the trial court was well within the maximum permitted by the statutes.

¶5Each of the assignments of error is overruled and the judgment of the superior court is

¶6Affirmed.

Mallard, C.J., and Parrer, J., concur.
/4/ncapp/302 · .json · Public domain