{
  "id": 8548626,
  "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. LEON LINDSEY",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Lindsey",
  "decision_date": "1972-04-26",
  "docket_number": "No. 7226SC53",
  "first_page": "266",
  "last_page": "268",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "14 N.C. App. 266"
    }
  ],
  "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": "166 S.E. 2d 534",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1969,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "4 N.C. App. 299",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8553214
      ],
      "year": 1969,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/4/0299-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "162 S.E. 2d 114",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1968,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "1 N.C. App. 625",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8555160
      ],
      "year": 1968,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/1/0625-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "185 S.E. 2d 328",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1971,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "13 N.C. App. 34",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8549944
      ],
      "year": 1971,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/13/0034-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "171 S.E. 2d 106",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1969,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "7 N.C. App. 53",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8547801
      ],
      "year": 1969,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/7/0053-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "178 S.E. 2d 6",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1970,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "10 N.C. App. 88",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8551045
      ],
      "year": 1970,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/10/0088-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "395 U.S. 238",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "U.S.",
      "case_ids": [
        1771759
      ],
      "weight": 3,
      "year": 1969,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/us/395/0238-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "180 S.E. 2d 29",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1971,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "10 N.C. App. 553",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8554907
      ],
      "year": 1971,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/10/0553-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 278,
    "char_count": 4784,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.561,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 2.0446031217563963e-07,
      "percentile": 0.7530466061920985
    },
    "sha256": "b0adc1c3587481aa7216139964c9270c6c70f95ca3db5197cf6f57df7e32d8dc",
    "simhash": "1:1fbdc53825b9a67e",
    "word_count": 822
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:58:48.650385+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges Britt and Graham concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. LEON LINDSEY"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "CAMPBELL, Judge.\nThe sole question presented on appeal is whether the defendant\u2019s guilty plea was entered voluntarily.\nThe defendant contends that the record on appeal is silent as to the voluntariness of defendant\u2019s plea of guilty and that the defendant is entitled to a new trial where the record does not reveal that the plea was voluntarily entered. We agree that a plea of guilty must be vacated where the record does not show affirmatively that the plea was voluntarily entered. State v. Harris, 10 N.C. App. 553, 180 S.E. 2d 29 (1971). Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238, 23 L.Ed. 2d 274, 89 S.Ct. 1709 (1969).\nIn this case, however, the Attorney General has, after proper motion, filed an addendum to the record which reveals that, after testimony by the State\u2019s first witness, .the defendant requested a recess for the purpose of conferring with his attorney. The recess was granted and defendant consulted with his attorney. After such consultation, defendant withdrew his plea of not guilty and entered a plea of guilty as charged. The defendant at this time testified, on examination by his own attorney in open court, that he realized he was tendering a plea of guilty to taking the pants and that he was doing this of his own free will.\nThe record on appeal, as originally filed, was silent on the issue in point merely because defendant omitted the facts included in the State\u2019s addendum from the original record. The appellant has the duty to see that the record on appeal is properly made up. State v. Thigpen, 10 N.C. App. 88, 178 S.E. 2d 6 (1970). The record must necessarily include the issues involved in the appeal. Rule 19, Rules of Practice in the Court of Appeals of North Carolina. Appellant will not be permitted to benefit from his own omission. We note that the same attorney appeared for the defendant both in the trial court and on this appeal. This attorney has evidently attempted to deceive this Court. Such conduct, if true, is reprehensible. We also note that the local solicitor carelessly failed to detect this vital omission from the record when he stipulated to the correctness of the case on appeal. We again remind solicitors, who have the responsibility of getting correct records in criminal cases to this Court, that they should be careful before stipulating to the correctness of records.\nA review of the record, as amended, reveals that the defendant entered his plea of guilty in open court after consultation with his attorney. He was then examined as to the voluntariness of the plea by his own attorney. Under these circumstances it was not error for the trial court to accept defendant\u2019s plea and not make independent findings that the plea was voluntary. However, it is better practice to always do so. State v. Johnson, 7 N.C. App. 53, 171 S.E. 2d 106 (1969); State v. Ford, 13 N.C. App. 34, 185 S.E. 2d 328 (1971). The plea will not be disturbed on appeal. State v. Abernathy, 1 N.C. App. 625, 162 S.E. 2d 114 (1968); State v. McKinnon, 4 N.C. App. 299, 166 S.E. 2d 534 (1969).\nNo error.\nJudges Britt and Graham concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "CAMPBELL, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney General Robert Morgan by Associate Attorney Thomas E. Kane for the State.",
      "Plumides & Plumides by Michael S. Shulimson for defendant appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. LEON LINDSEY\nNo. 7226SC53\n(Filed 26 April 1972)\n1. Criminal Law \u00a7 23\u2014 guilty plea \u2014 voluntariness \u2014 showing in record\nA plea of guilty must be vacated where the record does not show affirmatively that the plea was voluntarily entered.\n2. Criminal Law \u00a7 159\u2014 record on appeal \u2014 duty of appellant\nAppellant has the duty to see that the record on appeal is properly made up, and the record must necessarily include the issues involved in the appeal. Court of Appeals Rule 19.\n3. Criminal Law \u00a7 23\u2014 guilty plea \u2014 voluntariness \u2014 failure to make findings\nWhere defendant entered his plea of guilty in open court after consultation with his attorney, and was examined as to the voluntariness of the plea by his own attorney, it was not error for the trial court to accept defendant\u2019s plea without making independent findings that the plea was voluntary.\nAppeal by defendant from Fountain, Judge, at the 7 September 1971 Session of Mecklenburg Superior Court.\nThis defendant was charged in a warrant with the larceny of three pairs of pants' valued at $25.97. He entered a plea of not guilty at his trial in the District Court. The Court returned a verdict of guilty and defendant appealed to the Superior Court.\nIn the Superior Court the State put on the testimony of the arresting officer. The defendant then requested a recess, and, after conferring with his attorney, withdrew his plea of not guilty and entered a plea of guilty as charged.\nThe Court rendered judgment imposing a jail sentence.\nFrom the judgment the defendant appeals.\nAttorney General Robert Morgan by Associate Attorney Thomas E. Kane for the State.\nPlumides & Plumides by Michael S. Shulimson for defendant appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0266-01",
  "first_page_order": 292,
  "last_page_order": 294
}