{
  "id": 8548730,
  "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. CARL THOMAS RATLIFF",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Ratliff",
  "decision_date": "1972-04-26",
  "docket_number": "No. 7229SC252",
  "first_page": "275",
  "last_page": "276",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "14 N.C. App. 275"
    }
  ],
  "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": "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"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "395 U.S. 238",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "U.S.",
      "case_ids": [
        1771759
      ],
      "weight": 4,
      "year": 1969,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/us/395/0238-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 237,
    "char_count": 3261,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.573,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 8.262683731656366e-08,
      "percentile": 0.47845106027417045
    },
    "sha256": "5e42e41b3d63ff7482b2f74311026b71bf2bc617a50e0bc9f3c6cc6b2c32c322",
    "simhash": "1:5b78aefa0d0b7ce6",
    "word_count": 564
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:58:48.650385+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges Morris and Parker concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. CARL THOMAS RATLIFF"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "MALLARD, Chief Judge.\nAlthough it is stated in the printed record in this case that the record on appeal was filed in this court on 22 November 1971, it was not filed until 28 January 1972. This was after the time for docketing the appeal had expired. However, we treat the appeal as a petition for a writ of certiorari, allow it, and consider the matter on its merits.\nThe motion of the State to dismiss the appeal for failing to serve the case on appeal within the allotted time and for failing to file a brief at the appropriate time is denied.\nThe record shows that on 24 November 1971 the solicitor accepted service of what the defendant called the case on appeal and did not serve a countercase within the allotted time. The State cannot complain.\nThis court, ex mero motu, directed the Clerk of the Superior Court of Polk County \u201cto certify to this court any and all portions of the record in this case having to do with defendant\u2019s plea of guilty.\u201d This report of the clerk containing a certified copy of the \u201ccourt records\u201d fails to show any questions asked of or statements volunteered by the defendant with respect to his plea. In Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238, 23 L.Ed. 2d 274, 89 S.Ct. 1709 (1969), it is stated that the trial judge should canvass \u201cthe matter with the accused to make sure he has a full understanding of what the plea connotes and of its consequence.\u201d The record in the case before us shows that the defendant\u2019s attorney entered the plea for him but fails to show that there was an examination of the defendant by the court or anyone under its direction relating to whether the defendant understood the connotations and consequences of the plea. The volun-tariness of a plea of guilty cannot be presumed from a silent record. State v. Boykin, supra.\nThe plea of guilty entered herein is vacated, and the defendant is entitled to replead to the charge upon arraignment in the superior court. State v. Harris, 10 N.C. App. 553, 180 S.E. 2d 29 (1971).\nError and remanded.\nJudges Morris and Parker concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "MALLARD, Chief Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney General Morgan and Associate Attorney Witeover for the State.",
      "Guy E. Possinger for defendant appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. CARL THOMAS RATLIFF\nNo. 7229SC252\n(Filed 26 April 1972)\nCriminal Law \u00a7 23\u2014 plea of guilty \u2014 voluntariness \u2014 showing in record\nDefendant\u2019s plea of guilty is vacated, and defendant is entitled to replead to the charges against him, where the record fails to show that there was an examination of the defendant by the court or anyone under its direction relating to whether defendant understood the connotations, and consequences of the plea.\nAppeal by defendant from Fountain, Judge, 23 August 1971 Regular Criminal Session of Superior Court held in Polk County.\nThe defendant was charged in a warrant with wilfully operating a motor vehicle upon the highways of this State during the period that his driver\u2019s license was permanently revoked.\nThe record reveals that \u201c(t)he defendant, Carl Thomas Ratliff, in open court and through his counsel, Guy E. Possinger, enters a plea of guilty to the charge of driving after his operator\u2019s license were (sic) permanently revoked.\u201d\nFrom judgment of imprisonment for a term of one year, the defendant gave notice of appeal to the Court of Appeals.\nAttorney General Morgan and Associate Attorney Witeover for the State.\nGuy E. Possinger for defendant appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0275-01",
  "first_page_order": 301,
  "last_page_order": 302
}