{
  "id": 8547027,
  "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. DONALD RAY LAWING",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Lawing",
  "decision_date": "1971-07-14",
  "docket_number": "No. 7126SC399",
  "first_page": "21",
  "last_page": "23",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "12 N.C. App. 21"
    }
  ],
  "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": "172 S.E. 2d 99",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1970,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "7 N.C. App. 372",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8550080
      ],
      "year": 1970,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/7/0372-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "180 S.E. 2d 333",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1971,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "11 N.C. App. 141",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8553237
      ],
      "year": 1971,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/11/0141-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 252,
    "char_count": 3759,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.572,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.370710586428907e-08,
      "percentile": 0.2744304783792414
    },
    "sha256": "a9408e0eb5dc26963ee07838b7bdff80857b02cf75b34bd092b55b1cc3f0b7aa",
    "simhash": "1:a3a47302a6126c56",
    "word_count": 630
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:50:27.087613+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges Campbell and Hedrick concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. DONALD RAY LAWING"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "MALLARD, Chief Judge.\nDefendant assigns error to much of the evidence introduced by the State at the trial. We have examined the evidence, and defendant\u2019s assignments of error thereto are overruled.\nDefendant\u2019s motion in arrest of judgment filed herein is denied. The bill of indictment in this case is sufficient and is distinguishable from the bill of indictment in the case of State v. Able, 11 N.C. App. 141, 180 S.E. 2d 333 (1971).\nDefendant assigns as error the discrepancy between the pronouncement in open court that defendant be imprisoned for six years and the written judgment signed by the judge which indicated that he be imprisoned for eight years. We are unable to tell from the ambiguous state of the record the true character of the sentence. It is apparent that the written judgment contains a clerical error. For this error, the cause is remanded to the trial court to have the commitment corrected to conform to the sentence of six years as the record shows was actually pronounced in open court. State v. Brown, 7 N.C. App. 372, 172 S.E. 2d 99 (1970).\nRemanded with instructions.\nJudges Campbell and Hedrick concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "MALLARD, Chief Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney General Morgan and Associate Attorney Bieks for the State.",
      "William D. McNaull, Jr., for defendant appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. DONALD RAY LAWING\nNo. 7126SC399\n(Filed 14 July 1971)\nCriminal Law \u00a7 144\u2014 correction of sentence\nWhere the record shows a discrepancy between the pronouncement in open court that defendant be imprisoned for six years and the written judgment that defendant be imprisoned for eight years, the cause is remanded to the trial court for imposition of the six-year sentence.\nAppeal by defendant from McLean, Judge, 4 January 1971 Session of Superior Court held in Mecklenburg County.\nDefendant, Donald Ray Lawing, was tried upon a valid bill of indictment charging him with the felony of uttering a forged check.\nClarence Hartsell testified for the State that the building occupied by Hartsell Brothers1 Fence Company, Inc., was entered on 20 November 1969, and a checkbook was taken from the premises. The name and address of the firm was imprinted on approximately 300 checks that were taken. Clinton R. Hartsell, president of the company, and Clarence Hartsell, vice president, were the only persons authorized to sign the company checks.\nState\u2019s Exhibit 1 was introduced into evidence. It was identified as one of the checks taken and was payable to Donald Ray Lawing in the amount of $48.15. The check was signed by \u201cClarence Hartsell\u201d and \u201cClinton C. Hartsell,\u201d but Clarence Hartsell testified that he did not sign it, that he did not know a \u201cClinton C. Hartsell,\u201d and that neither he nor anyone else in the firm authorized anyone to sign State\u2019s Exhibit 1.\nJames W. Wayne testified for the State that he worked at Benson\u2019s Rexall Drugs. On 21 November 1969 the defendant approached him and asked him to cash the check, State\u2019s Exhibit 1. Wayne approved the cashing of the check and saw defendant endorse it. The check was cashed. On cross-examination, Wayne testified:\n\u201c * * * It is a possibility that the defendant could have come in my store on some other day to cash the check. I am not positive November 21, 1969 was the exact date. I have never cashed any other Hartsell brothers checks.\u201d\nDefendant offered evidence which tended to establish an alibi.\nThe jury returned a verdict of guilty as charged, and the judgment pronounced in open court was that the defendant be confined to the common jail in Mecklenburg County for a period of six years. However, the judgment signed by the judge read:\n\u201cIt is Adjudged that the defendant be imprisoned for the term of Eight (8) years in the common jail of Meck-lenburg County * * * .\u201d\nFrom this judgment, the defendant appealed.\nAttorney General Morgan and Associate Attorney Bieks for the State.\nWilliam D. McNaull, Jr., for defendant appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0021-01",
  "first_page_order": 47,
  "last_page_order": 49
}