{
  "id": 8551788,
  "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. ANTHONY DRAUGHN",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Draughn",
  "decision_date": "1972-10-25",
  "docket_number": "No. 7212SC727",
  "first_page": "426",
  "last_page": "427",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "16 N.C. App. 426"
    }
  ],
  "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": "183 S.E. 2d 647",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "279 N.C. 500",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8570082
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/279/0500-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 179,
    "char_count": 2478,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.51,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 2.0446031217563963e-07,
      "percentile": 0.7530734417334756
    },
    "sha256": "c35ca2c83ffc344debd4114e02198094e786a06b649408c7a27e3c1e476375d7",
    "simhash": "1:8b180e902796814f",
    "word_count": 395
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:27:31.279819+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges Campbell and Morris concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. ANTHONY DRAUGHN"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "PARKER, Judge.\nSince defendant pleaded guilty, this appeal presents for review only the question whether error appears on the face of the record proper. State v. Roberts, 279 N.C. 500, 183 S.E. 2d 647. We have carefully examined the record, and no error appears. The bill of indictment was in all respects regular; the court was properly organized; the trial judge properly examined defendant before accepting his plea and found that the plea of guilty was freely, understanding and voluntarily made; there was plenary evidence to support these findings; and the sentence imposed was within statutory limits.\nAfter careful review of the record, we find\nNo error.\nJudges Campbell and Morris concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "PARKER, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney General Robert Morgan by Associate Attorney Rolf F. Haskell for the State.",
      "Downing, David & Vallery by Ray C. Vallery for defendant appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. ANTHONY DRAUGHN\nNo. 7212SC727\n(Filed 25 October 1972)\nCriminal Law \u00a7 146\u2014 appeal from guilty plea \u2014 no error on face of record\nIn an appeal from a sentence imposed upon defendant\u2019s plea of guilty to a charge of conspiracy to commit armed robbery, no error appeared on the face of the record where it showed that the bill of indictment was in all respects regular; the court was properly organized; the trial judge found that defendant\u2019s plea of guilty was freely, understandingly and voluntarily made; there was plenary evidence to support these findings; and the sentence imposed was within statutory limits.\nAppeal by defendant from Clark, Judge, 15 May 1972 Regular Criminal Session of Superior Court held in Cumberland County.\nDefendant and two others were indicted for conspiracy to commit armed robbery. Represented by court-appointed counsel, defendant tendered a plea of guilty. Before accepting the plea, the court examined defendant, and defendant signed and swore to a written transcript of the plea. Based thereon, the court found and adjudged that the plea of guilty had been freely, understandingly and voluntarily made, without undue influence, compulsion or duress, and without promise of leniency, and ordered that the plea of guilty, the transcript of the plea, and the court\u2019s adjudication thereon be filed and recorded. Judgment was imposed sentencing defendant to prison for a term of not less than seven nor more than ten years, with direction that the sentence be credited with the time defendant had spent in confinement awaiting trial. From this judgment, defendant appealed.\nAttorney General Robert Morgan by Associate Attorney Rolf F. Haskell for the State.\nDowning, David & Vallery by Ray C. Vallery for defendant appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0426-01",
  "first_page_order": 450,
  "last_page_order": 451
}