{
  "id": 8555137,
  "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. JAMES ALLISON",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Allison",
  "decision_date": "1963-07-10",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "623",
  "last_page": "625",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "1 N.C. App. 623"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "N.C. Ct. App.",
    "id": 14983,
    "name": "North Carolina Court of Appeals"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 5,
    "name_long": "North Carolina",
    "name": "N.C."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "126 S.E. 2d 126",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "257 N.C. 326",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8567591
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/257/0326-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 251,
    "char_count": 3932,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.556,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.2060054466495923
    },
    "sha256": "5290ff36f25e5cb4c552a7db88798db3ae1ece272d651ed94aa9885ac2d02087",
    "simhash": "1:01a467b2a4a94e50",
    "word_count": 648
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:11:01.747951+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Brock and Parker, JJ., concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. JAMES ALLISON."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mallard, C.J.\nDefendant's only assignment of error is to certain remarks made by the solicitor to the trial judge after the defendant had entered a plea of guilty to the charge in the bill of indictment and before the imposition of judgment.\nThe record on appeal reveals that after the plea of guilty and after hearing the evidence presented, the Court requested argument from counsel for defendant and from the solicitor. The solicitor told the Court \u201cthat the defendant had cases pending against him in Alamance County that were nol prossed with leave at a prior time\u201d and that \u201cdefendant\u2019s counsel had approached him (Solicitor) in an effort to work a deal with him (Solicitor)\u201d . . . \u201cthat the defendant should be incarcerated for a considerable length of time to keep people like the defendant from preying on society.\u201d\nThe defendant does not contend that these statements made by the solicitor are inaccurate. The defendant does not contend that he was denied the right to introduce evidence in mitigation before judgment. The defendant\u2019s contention that these statements by the solicitor were not a proper subject of argument, under the circumstances revealed by this record, is without merit. In State v. Pope, 257 N.C. 326, 126 S.E. 2d 126, the Supreme Court said, \u201cA judgment will not be disturbed because of sentencing procedures unless there is a showing of abuse of discretion, procedural conduct prejudicial to defendant, circumstances which manifest inherent unfairness and injustice, or conduct which offends the public sense of fair play.\u201d\nThe sentence imposed by Judge McKinnon was not excessive. Under the provisions of the applicable statute, G.S. 148-45, the judge could have sentenced the defendant to imprisonment for a minimum of six months or a maximum of three years. None of defendant\u2019s fundamental rights were violated; he has had a fair trial.\nThe judgment of the Court is\nAffirmed.\nBrock and Parker, JJ., concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mallard, C.J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney\u2022 General T. W. Bruton and Deputy Attorney General Ralph Moody for the State.",
      "Ramsey, Long & Jackson by George W. Jackson for the defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. JAMES ALLISON.\n(Filed 10 July 1963.)\n1. Criminal Law \u00a7 134\u2014\nUpon trial court\u2019s request for argument from counsel for defense and from tlie solicitor prior to tlie sentencing of defendant upon his plea of guilty to the charge of felonious escape, defendant was not prejudiced by the solicitor\u2019s argument that defendant had cases pending against him that had been nol prossed with leave or that defendant should be incarcerated for a considerable length of time for the protection of society, the defendant neither contending that the statements were inaccurate or 1hat he was denied the right to introduce evidence in mitigation before judgment.\n3. Same\u2014\nA judgment will not be disturbed because of sentencing procedures unless there is a showing of an abuse of discretion, procedural conduct prejudicial to defendant, circumstances which manifest inherent unfairness and injustice, or conduct which offends the public sense of fair play.\n3. Escape \u00a7 1\u2014\nSentence of imprisonment of one rear imposed upon defendant\u2019s plea of guilty to the charge of felonious escape is within the statutory maximum, 6.S. 14S-45, and is not excessive.\nAppeal by defendant from McKinnon, J., February 1968 Criminal Session of Superior Court of PeesoN County.\nDefendant was charged in a valid bill of indictment with the felony of escape, it being a second offense. Upon a plea of guilty, the Court pronounced judgment of imprisonment \u201cfor a term of one year to begin at the expiration of all sentences he was serving or had to serve on the date of the escape on July 5, 1967, the last such sentence being one imposed in the Superior Court of Lincoln County on May 14, 1965 of not less than four nor more than nine years for breaking and entering and larceny.\u201d From the judgment imposed, the defendant appeals to the Court of Appeals.\nAttorney\u2022 General T. W. Bruton and Deputy Attorney General Ralph Moody for the State.\nRamsey, Long & Jackson by George W. Jackson for the defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0623-01",
  "first_page_order": 645,
  "last_page_order": 647
}
