{
  "id": 8552463,
  "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. JOHN MICHAEL BUSH",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Bush",
  "decision_date": "1970-12-16",
  "docket_number": "No. 704SC619",
  "first_page": "185",
  "last_page": "186",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "10 N.C. App. 185"
    }
  ],
  "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": "154 S.E. 2d 476",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "270 N.C. 348",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8568006
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/270/0348-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 142,
    "char_count": 1853,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.528,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 2.0446031217563963e-07,
      "percentile": 0.7530782682696945
    },
    "sha256": "931d55677dd547212db3b68f696924c9ddfb870fc2e1f1ddb3b2b512fcc61a19",
    "simhash": "1:8a46956a0484ac49",
    "word_count": 296
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:51:53.441044+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges Brock and Morris concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. JOHN MICHAEL BUSH"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "VAUGHN, Judge.\nDefendant\u2019s assignment of error based on the trial judge\u2019s denial of his motion for a continuance is overruled. The motion was addressed to the sound discretion of the trial judge and no abuse of discretion is shown. State v. Hewett, 270 N.C. 348, 154 S.E. 2d 476.\nThe defendant\u2019s remaining assignments of error have been carefully considered and found to be without merit. There was sufficient evidence to sustain the findings of the trial judge that the defendant had violated the conditions of his probation in each case.\nAffirmed.\nJudges Brock and Morris concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "VAUGHN, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney General Robert Morgan by Assistant Attorney General Thomas B. Wood for the State.",
      "Jerry Paul for defendant appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. JOHN MICHAEL BUSH\nNo. 704SC619\n(Filed 16 December 1970)\n1. Criminal Law \u00a7\u00a7 91, 145.1\u2014 probation revocation hearing \u2014 denial of continuance\nNo abuse of discretion has been shown in the trial court\u2019s denial of defendant\u2019s motion for a continuance of his probation revocation hearing.\n2. Criminal Law \u00a7 145.1\u2014 revocation of probation \u2014 sufficiency of evidence\nThere was sufficient evidence to support the findings of the trial court that defendant had violated the conditions of his probation in each of two separate cases.\nAppeal by defendant from Copeland, Special Superior Court Judge, 20 May 1970 Session, Onslow Superior Court.\nThis is an appeal from judgments revoking probation. During the course of defendant\u2019s trial in another case, he was duly informed in writing of his probation officer\u2019s intention to ask the court to revoke probation in two separate cases. The hearing was scheduled the day following the end of the trial then in progress. After hearing the evidence, the presiding judge, in detailed findings of fact, found that defendant had violated the conditions of his probation. Defendant appealed.\nAttorney General Robert Morgan by Assistant Attorney General Thomas B. Wood for the State.\nJerry Paul for defendant appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0185-01",
  "first_page_order": 209,
  "last_page_order": 210
}