{
  "id": 8551401,
  "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. JAMES VERNON RIDDLE",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Riddle",
  "decision_date": "1973-06-13",
  "docket_number": "No. 7329SC388",
  "first_page": "490",
  "last_page": "491",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "18 N.C. App. 490"
    }
  ],
  "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": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 199,
    "char_count": 3019,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.502,
    "sha256": "9a3af617746b22890fe65a5f476b9ca34fb3c90c7e7778504490c4b5a908a562",
    "simhash": "1:8302dfb06c9b5b9d",
    "word_count": 474
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:14:36.293491+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges Campbell and Parker concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. JAMES VERNON RIDDLE"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "VAUGHN, Judge.\nDefendant appealed to the superior court from judgments of the district court placing two suspended sentences into effect. Such appeals are heard in the superior court only upon the issue of whether there has been a violation of the terms of the suspended sentence. Upon finding that the conditions have been violated, the superior court shall enforce the judgment of the district court, unless the judge finds that the circumstances and conditions surrounding the terms of probation and the violation thereof have substantially changed so that enforcement of the judgment would not accord justice to the defendant, in which case the terms of the suspended sentence may be modified or revoked. G.S. 15-200.1.\nThe jurisdiction of the superior court was derivative and the court was without authority to try defendant anew. In fairness to the trial judge, we must observe that it does not appear that the solicitor advised the court that the cases were on appeal from judgments revoking suspended sentences instead of appeals from convictions for which trials de novo would be proper. The judgments are vacated and the case is remanded.\nVacated and remanded.\nJudges Campbell and Parker concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "VAUGHN, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney General Robert Morgan by Eugene Hafer, Assistant Attorney General, for the State.",
      "Dameron & Burgin by Charles E. Bur gin for defendant appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. JAMES VERNON RIDDLE\nNo. 7329SC388\n(Filed 13 June 1973)\nCriminal Law \u00a7 143 \u2014 appeal from revocation of suspended sentence \u2014 jurisdiction of court on appeal\nWhere defendant appealed to superior court from judgments revoking suspended sentences, jurisdiction of the superior court was derivative and the court was without authority to try defendant anew; therefore, judgments of superior court sentencing defendant to prison terms upon his guilty pleas are vacated.\nOn certiorari to review judgment of Falls, Judge, 5 June 1972 Session of Superior Court held in McDowell County.\nDefendant entered pleas of guilty in the District Court of McDowell County on two charges of issuing worthless checks. Judgments were entered imposing two consecutive four-months jail sentences. The sentences were suspended for one year on certain conditions, including one that restitution be made. Subsequently, after notice and hearing, an order revoking the suspended sentences and placing the active sentences into effect was entered in the district court. Defendant appealed to the superior court.\nThe cases came on for hearing in the superior court on 7 June 1972. Instead of proceeding on the issue of whether there had been violations of the suspended sentences as provided by G.S. 15-200.1, the court placed defendant on trial anew. Pleas of guilty were entered and defendant was sentenced to jail for six months in each case. The sentences were to run consecutively. On 12 September we issued an order allowing defendant\u2019s petition for certiorari. After a hearing conducted pursuant to our order, counsel was appointed to represent defendant.\nAttorney General Robert Morgan by Eugene Hafer, Assistant Attorney General, for the State.\nDameron & Burgin by Charles E. Bur gin for defendant appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0490-01",
  "first_page_order": 514,
  "last_page_order": 515
}