{
  "id": 8554978,
  "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. JOHN FLOYD",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Floyd",
  "decision_date": "1973-10-10",
  "docket_number": "No. 7310SC633",
  "first_page": "580",
  "last_page": "581",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "19 N.C. App. 580"
    }
  ],
  "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 669",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1971,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "670"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "279 N.C. 482",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8569883
      ],
      "year": 1971,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "483"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/279/0482-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "188 S.E. 2d 2",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1972,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "14 N.C. App. 270",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8548682
      ],
      "year": 1972,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/14/0270-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "187 S.E. 2d 785",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1972,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "281 N.C. 131",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8573974
      ],
      "year": 1972,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/281/0131-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 161,
    "char_count": 1751,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.589,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 2.0446031217563963e-07,
      "percentile": 0.7530985397218138
    },
    "sha256": "264f1e4a9c4245308bddb746120508326926cc79a25cdb866cbefcfb23d6bf76",
    "simhash": "1:4b4adc2e88a1a955",
    "word_count": 289
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:32:34.966448+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges Parker and Vaughn concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. JOHN FLOYD"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "BRITT, Judge.\nAlthough defendant\u2019s brief contains no assignments of error, the appeal itself constitutes an exception to the judgment and presents the case for review for error appearing on the face of the record. State v. Cox, 281 N.C. 131, 187 S.E. 2d 785 (1972); State v. Harris, 14 N.C. App. 270, 188 S.E. 2d 2 (1972). \u201cOrdinarily, in criminal cases the record proper consists of (1) the organization of the court, (2) the charge (information, warrant or indictment), (3) the arraignment and plea, (4) the verdict, and (5) the judgment.\u201d State v. Tinsley, 279 N.C. 482, 483, 183 S.E. 2d 669, 670 (1971).\nIn the case at bar, a careful review of the record proper fails to disclose either error of law or of legal inference.\nNo error.\nJudges Parker and Vaughn concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "BRITT, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney General Robert Morgan by William B. Ray, Assistant Attorney General, and William W. Melvin, Assistant Attorney General, for the State.",
      "Robert P. Gruber for defendant appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. JOHN FLOYD\nNo. 7310SC633\n(Filed 10 October 1973)\nCriminal Law \u00a7 161 \u2014 appeal as exception to judgment\nThe appeal itself constitutes an exception to the judgment and presents the case for review for error appearing on the face of the record.\nAppeal by defendant from Copeland, Judge, 16 April 1973 Session of Wake Superior Court.\nThe bill of indictment returned against defendant charges that he did, on or about 29 July 1972, unlawfully, willfully and feloniously distribute a controlled substance, heroin, to Arthur Manning at 709 Jamaica Drive, Raleigh, N. C. Defendant pleaded not guilty, a jury returned a verdict of guilty as charged, and from judgment imposing prison sentence of five years, to begin at expiration of sentences being served, defendant appealed.\nAttorney General Robert Morgan by William B. Ray, Assistant Attorney General, and William W. Melvin, Assistant Attorney General, for the State.\nRobert P. Gruber for defendant appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0580-01",
  "first_page_order": 604,
  "last_page_order": 605
}