{
  "id": 8554806,
  "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. JAMES CORBET STRICKLAND",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Strickland",
  "decision_date": "1971-02-24",
  "docket_number": "No. 7118SC151",
  "first_page": "540",
  "last_page": "541",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "10 N.C. App. 540"
    }
  ],
  "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": "173 S.E. 2d 644",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1970,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "8 N. C. App. 94",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8549561
      ],
      "year": 1970,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/8/0094-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "169 S.E. 2d 210",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1969,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "6 N. C. App. 8",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8546657
      ],
      "year": 1969,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/6/0008-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 190,
    "char_count": 2383,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.543,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.2240919645422112e-07,
      "percentile": 0.6033527437313913
    },
    "sha256": "75ac0f1f07ab38ae2f63ea926805a54cd24a1fb0147811455fbf8e7382e4ef07",
    "simhash": "1:c58dc50604a2863c",
    "word_count": 385
  },
  "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 Vaughn concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. JAMES CORBET STRICKLAND"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "MORRIS, Judge.\nDefendant\u2019s only assignment of error is to the signing and entry of the judgment. Counsel candidly states in his brief that in his opinion the trial was free from prejudicial error but that defendant contends the court abused its discretion in imposing a sentence which was cruel and unjust punishment. This contention is, of course, without merit. Sentence imposed was imprisonment for not less than six nor more than ten years. The offense with which defendant was charged is a violation of G.S. 14-54 which denominates the offense of a felony punishable under G.S. 14-2. G.S. 14-2 provides for punishment \u201cby fine, by imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years, or by both, in the discretion of the court.\u201d It has been repeatedly held that punishment within the limits authorized by statute is not cruel and unusual punishment within the constitutional prohibition. State v. Powell, 6 N. C. App. 8, 169 S.E. 2d 210 (1969), and cases there cited.\nAn exception to the judgment presents the face of the record proper for review. State v. Price, 8 N. C. App. 94, 173 S.E. 2d 644 (1970). We have reviewed the record proper for error and find none.\nAffirmed.\nJudges Brock and Vaughn concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "MORRIS, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney General Morgan by Staff Attorney Price for the State.",
      "Z. H. Howerton, Jr. attorney for defendant appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. JAMES CORBET STRICKLAND\nNo. 7118SC151\n(Filed 24 February 1971)\n1. Burglary and Unlawful Breakings \u00a7 8; Constitutional Law \u00a7 36\u2014 validity of sentence \u2014 cruel and unusual punishment\nSentence of six to ten years imprisonment which, was imposed upon defendant\u2019s conviction of felonious breaking and entering was within the statutory limits and did not constitute cruel and unusual punishment. G.S. 14-2; G.S. 14-54.\n2. Criminal Law \u00a7 161\u2014 exception to the judgment \u2014 appellate review\nAn exception to the j'udgment presents the face of the record for review.\nAppeal by defendant from Collier, Superior Court Judge, 7 September 1970 Criminal Session of Superior Court of GUIL-FORD County.\nDefendant was charged with breaking and entering and larceny and receiving. The jury returned a verdict of guilty of felonious breaking and entering. From judgment entered on the verdict, defendant appealed. He was represented at trial by court-appointed counsel, appeals in forma pauperis, and is represented on appeal by court-appointed counsel.\nAttorney General Morgan by Staff Attorney Price for the State.\nZ. H. Howerton, Jr. attorney for defendant appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0540-01",
  "first_page_order": 564,
  "last_page_order": 565
}