{
  "id": 8554793,
  "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. JOHN NOBLE ROBINSON",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Robinson",
  "decision_date": "1975-07-16",
  "docket_number": "No. 7526SC318",
  "first_page": "620",
  "last_page": "622",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "26 N.C. App. 620"
    }
  ],
  "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": "201 S.E. 2d 577",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1974,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "20 N.C. App. 483",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8553785
      ],
      "year": 1974,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/20/0483-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 322,
    "char_count": 5131,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.565,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 9.505882454708161e-08,
      "percentile": 0.5230747043553504
    },
    "sha256": "517d9ff13c8276650b01b8f376af08348e8ed1e4633f56d3ddc0116800a1b9a7",
    "simhash": "1:818873a9150618e8",
    "word_count": 844
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:59:13.418266+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges Vaughn and Clark concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. JOHN NOBLE ROBINSON"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "MORRIS, Judge.\nDefendant\u2019s assignments of error Nos. 1, 2 and 3 are deemed abandoned, since no exceptions supporting them are brought forward in defendant\u2019s brief and no argument or authority is stated in support of them. Rule 28, Rules of Practice in the Court of Appeals of North Carolina.\nIn his sole remaining assignment of error defendant excepts to the signing and entry of the order revoking his probation and to the signing and entry of the judgments and commitments upon revocation of his suspended sentence. These exceptions present the face of the record for review. State v. Brown, 20 N.C. App. 483, 201 S.E. 2d 577 (1974), and cases cited therein. We have examined the record proper and' find no error.\nNo error.\nJudges Vaughn and Clark concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "MORRIS, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney General Edmisten, by Assistant Attorney General Conrad O. Pearson, for the State.",
      "Alexander Copeland III for defendant appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. JOHN NOBLE ROBINSON\nNo. 7526SC318\n(Filed 16 July 1975)\n1. Criminal Law \u00a7 161\u2014 assignments of error abandoned\nAssignments of error are deemed abandoned where no exceptions supporting them are brought forward in defendant\u2019s brief and no argument or authority is stated in support of them. Rule 28, Rules of Practice in the Court of Appeals.\n2. Criminal Law \u00a7 161\u2014 exception to signing of judgment \u2014 record reviewed\nExceptions to the signing and entry of judgments present the face of the record for review.\nAppeal by defendant from Thornburg, Judge. Judgment entered 10 January 1975 in Superior Court, Mecklenburg County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 18 June 1975.\nDefendant was charged with two separate counts of \u201creceiving stolen property of the value of more than $200.00 knowing the same to have been previously stolen.\u201d Upon his plea of guilty, the trial court sentenced the defendant to imprisonment for consecutive terms of six years for each count, with both sentences suspended for a period of five years upon the defendant\u2019s compliance with certain specified conditions of probation. Subsequently a probation officer reported that the defendant had \u201cwilfully and without lawful excuse\u201d violated the condition of the probation judgment that he \u201c [r] emain within a specified area and shall not change place of residence without the written consent of the probation officer\u201d by moving to an unknown address without permission. Thereafter on 28 February 1973, a warrant was issued for the defendant\u2019s arrest. On 16 October 1974, the probation officer returned the defendant to court and reported that in addition to changing his place of residence without permission, the defendant also \u201cwilfully and without lawful excuse\u201d violated the condition of his probation that he \u201c [v] iolate no penal law of any state or the Federal Government and be of general good behavior\u201d in \u201c[t]hat on or about October 19, 1973, the said probationer was arrested and charged in Hills-borough County, Florida with the felony of Breaking and Entering. On October 4, 1974, in Hillsborough County, Florida the charge was reduced to Buying, Receiving, and Aiding in the Possession of Stolen Property, adjudication of guilt was withheld and the defendant placed on probation for a period of three (3) years.\u201d\nConsidered in the light most favorable to the State, evidence presented at the probation revocation hearing tended to show that James W. Bryant, a probation officer with the North Carolina Department of Corrections, was assigned to supervise the defendant in January 1972; that in October 1972, in violation of a condition of his probation the defendant left his place of residence in Charlotte, North Carolina, and moved to an unknown address without having previously secured the written consent of the probation officer; and that the defendant was not seen again until October 1974 when he was found to be living in Tampa, Florida. According to probation officer Bryant \u201c[t]he defendant had been arrested in Florida and the Court learned he had been on probation in North Carolina.\u201d \u201cThe defendant was charged with the offense of felonious breaking and entering on October 19, 1973, but it was amended to buying, receiving, and aiding in the possession of stolen property.\u201d The defendant reportedly \u201centered a plea of guilty\u201d to that charge.\nTestifying on his own behalf, the defendant stated that he left Charlotte in October 1972, \u201cbecause my ex-wife and I weren\u2019t getting along, because of the job and I just didn\u2019t feel like I was getting anywhere up here, and I just felt depressed and everything else.\u201d He further testified that he planned to write his probation officer, but that he \u201clost his name and everything else.\u201d Defendant admitted that in Florida he \u201cpled guilty to aiding and abetting of stolen goods with the terms that after three years of probation that they would drop it, in other words, it would be off my record.\u201d He stated that he understood that when he was put on probation he was not to move without permission and that he was not to break any laws.\nFrom entry of an order revoking his probation and activating the previous judgments for receiving stolen property, defendant appealed.\nAttorney General Edmisten, by Assistant Attorney General Conrad O. Pearson, for the State.\nAlexander Copeland III for defendant appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0620-01",
  "first_page_order": 648,
  "last_page_order": 650
}