{
  "id": 8550710,
  "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. EARL EUGENE PARKS",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Parks",
  "decision_date": "1974-12-18",
  "docket_number": "No. 748SC589",
  "first_page": "314",
  "last_page": "316",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "24 N.C. App. 314"
    }
  ],
  "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": "193 S.E. 2d 388",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1972,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "17 N.C. App. 195",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8554708
      ],
      "year": 1972,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/17/0195-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "196 S.E. 2d 555",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1973,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "18 N.C. App. 321",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8549257
      ],
      "year": 1973,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/18/0321-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "192 S.E. 2d 569",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1972,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "282 N.C. 157",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8563853
      ],
      "year": 1972,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/282/0157-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 252,
    "char_count": 4091,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.572,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 2.0446031217563963e-07,
      "percentile": 0.7530659123369741
    },
    "sha256": "46bd8d7f7cac3b093496c5d52f633a358c84fb02c19bc19a760aa92fe8b32f49",
    "simhash": "1:c3aa06eb6e9f6064",
    "word_count": 666
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:54:40.635509+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Chief Judge Brock and Judge Martin concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. EARL EUGENE PARKS"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "HEDEJCK, Judge.\nBy his first three assignments of error, based on exceptions duly noted in the record, the defendant contends the court in its instructions to the jury expressed an opinion on the evidence relating to the charge of driving under the influence, fifth offense. Each of these exceptions challenges a portion of the charge where the trial judge was stating the contentions of the State and when considered contextually with remainder of the instructions is clearly without error.\nThe defendant\u2019s fourth asisgnment of error relates to the court\u2019s instructions to the jury on the charge of operating a motor vehicle on the public highway while the defendant\u2019s operator\u2019s license was permanently revoked. The defendant conT tends: \u201cThe trial judge in defining the offense for the jury failed to give the jury any instructions on what would constitute permanent revocation, but merely instructed the jury on what they would need to find for driving while license revoked.\u201d The defendant was charged with a violation of G.S. 20-28 (b), which in pertinent part provides:\n\u25a0\u201cAny person whose license h\u00e1s been permanently revoked or permanently suspended, as provided in this-Article, who shall drive any motor vehicle upon the highways of this State while such license is permanently revoked or permanently suspended shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and shall be imprisoned for not less than one year.\u201d\nWhile there is evidence in the record tending to show that defendant\u2019s operator\u2019s license was permanently revoked, nowhere in his instructions did the judge relate this aspect of the evidence to the charge in the warrant. This was error. In effect, the case was submitted to the jury as if the defendant had been charged with the lesser offense of driving while his license was suspended or revoked other than permanently under G.S. 20-28(a). If the jury had found the defendant guilty of the lesser offense, rather than \u201cguilty as charged,\u201d the defendant, having been the beneficiary of the error, would have had no cause to complain. In any event, since the two cases were consolidated for judgment and the jail sentence of twelve months therein imposed is supported by the conviction of driving under the influence, fifth offense, under the authority of State v. Summrell, 282 N.C. 157, 192 S.E. 2d 569 (1972); State v. Avery, 18 N.C. App. 321, 196 S.E. 2d 555 (1973) ; and State v. Jefferies, 17 N.C. App. 195, 193 S.E. 2d 388 (1972), the error in the charge in the case of driving while license was permanently revoked is not prejudicial.\nNo error.\nChief Judge Brock and Judge Martin concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "HEDEJCK, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney General James H. .Carson, Jr., by Assistant Attorney William Woodward Webb and Associate Attorney James Wallace, Jr., for the State.",
      "Strickland & Rouse by David M. Rouse for defendant appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. EARL EUGENE PARKS\nNo. 748SC589\n(Filed 18 December 1974)\nAutomobiles \u00a7 3; Criminal Law \u00a7 171 \u2014 driving while license permanently revoked \u2014 error in charge \u2014 consolidation with another case for judgment\nIn a prosecution for driving while license was permanently revoked, the trial court erred in failing to charge the jury on what would constitute permanent revocation; however, such error was not prejudicial since the court consolidated the case for judgment with a conviction of driving under the influence, fifth offense, and the sentence of 12 months is supported by the conviction of driving under the influence, fifth offense.\nAppeal by defendant from Lanier, Judge, 28 January 1974 Session of Superior Court held in Wayne County. Heard in the Court of Appeals on 12 November 1974.\nThe defendant was charged in a warrant, proper in form, with operating a motor vehicle upon the public highway (1) while under the influence of an intoxicating beverage, fifth offense, and (2) while his operator\u2019s license was permanently revoked. The defendant was found \u201c[gjuilty as charged to both offenses.\u201d The court consolidated the two cases for judgment and sentenced the defendant to be imprisoned in the county jail for twelve (12) months.\nDefendant appealed.\nAttorney General James H. .Carson, Jr., by Assistant Attorney William Woodward Webb and Associate Attorney James Wallace, Jr., for the State.\nStrickland & Rouse by David M. Rouse for defendant appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0314-01",
  "first_page_order": 342,
  "last_page_order": 344
}