{
  "id": 8553999,
  "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. RALPH O. JACKSON",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Jackson",
  "decision_date": "1975-11-05",
  "docket_number": "No. 7512SC556",
  "first_page": "393",
  "last_page": "395",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "27 N.C. App. 393"
    }
  ],
  "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": "190 S.E. 2d 877",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1972,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "16 N.C. App. 62",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8548621
      ],
      "year": 1972,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/16/0062-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "69 S.E. 2d 174",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1952,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "235 N.C. 169",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8622190
      ],
      "year": 1952,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/235/0169-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "171 S.E. 2d 27",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1969,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "6 N.C. App. 745",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8551030
      ],
      "year": 1969,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/6/0745-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "35 S.E. 2d 169",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1945,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "225 N.C. 369",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8608263
      ],
      "year": 1945,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/225/0369-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "89 S.E. 2d 792",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1955,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "243 N.C. 86",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8621350
      ],
      "year": 1955,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/243/0086-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "150 S.E. 2d 194",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1966,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "268 N.C. 167",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8560774
      ],
      "year": 1966,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/268/0167-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "185 S.E. 2d 302",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1971,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "13 N.C. App. 216",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8551708
      ],
      "year": 1971,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/13/0216-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "204 S.E. 2d 226",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1974,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "21 N.C. App. 311",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8555782
      ],
      "year": 1974,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/21/0311-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 308,
    "char_count": 4077,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.59,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.2059799625383565
    },
    "sha256": "cb8216ab2190d05a8d8231fb7a8d49f1f1b5c3c8258978a589e8c94d66eb3986",
    "simhash": "1:0b2d0e3a20493dfc",
    "word_count": 696
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:44:36.927205+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges Britt and Vaughn concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. RALPH O. JACKSON"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "ARNOLD, Judge.\nTwo arguments are presented by defendant in this appeal. First he contends that the trial court erred in failing to submit to the jury the issue of whether the defendant was guilty of the lesser included offense of simple assault. It is a well established rule that a trial court does not commit error by failing to' s\u00fabmit to the jury lesser included offenses of which there is no supporting evidence. State v. Capel, 21 N.C. App. 311, 204 S.E. 2d 226 (1974) ; State v. Alexander and State v. Propst, 13 N.C. App. 216, 185 S.E. 2d 302 (1971) ; State v. Smith, 268 N.C. 167, 150 S.E. 2d 194 (1966). In the instant case no evidence was introduced tending to establish that James Guy was not robbed.\nDefendant next contends that the judgment of the court was so vague and uncertain that the sentence should run concurrently with any sentence or sentences the defendant is presently serving. The judgment imposed on defendant ordered confinement for a period of 3 years \u201c[t]o commence at the expiration of any and all sentences herebefore imposed upon the defendant.\u201d Defendant argues that the judgment, requires evidence outside of the record, citing In re Swink, 243 N.C. 86, 89 S.E. 2d 792 (1955). See also In re Parker, 225 N.C. 369, 35 S.E. 2d 169 (1945).\nThis Court held in State v. Lightsey, 6 N.C. App. 745, 171 S.E. 2d 27 (1969), that the imposition of a sentence \u201cto begin at the expiration of any and all sentences the defendant is now serving in the North Carolina Department of Corrections\u201d clearly indicates the intent of the trial judge that the sentence be served consecutively without resort to evidence aliunde. There is no doubt whatsoever that the trial court\u2019s judgment in the instant case clearly reflects an intent to make the sentence run consecutively with other sentences imposed on the defendant. In re Smith, 235 N.C. 169, 69 S.E. 2d 174 (1952) ; State v. Thompson, 16 N.C. App. 62, 190 S.E. 2d 877 (1972) ; State v. Lightsey, supra.\nNo error.\nJudges Britt and Vaughn concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "ARNOLD, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney General Edmisten, by Associate Attorney Sandra M. King, for the State.",
      "Mary Ann Tally, Assistant Public Defender, Twelfth Judicial District, for defendant appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. RALPH O. JACKSON\nNo. 7512SC556\n(Filed 5 November 1975)\n1. Robbery \u00a7 5 \u2014 failure to submit simple assault \u2014 no error\nThe trial court in a prosecution for armed robbery did not err in failing to submit to the jury the lesser included offense of simple assault where no evidence was introduced tending to establish that the victim was not robbed.\n2. Criminal Law \u00a7 140 \u2014 sentence imposed to run consecutively with other sentences\nThe trial court\u2019s judgment ordering confinement for a period of three years \u201cto commence at the expiration of any and all sentences herebefore imposed upon the defendant\u201d clearly reflected an intent to make the sentence run consecutively with other sentences imposed on the defendant.\nAppeal by defendant from Hobgood, Judge. Judgment entered 8 April 1975, in Superior Court, Cumberland County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 16 October 1975.\nDefendant was tried on an indictment charging him with armed robbery. The jury returned a verdict of guilty of common law robbery.\n: The State\u2019s evidence tended to establish that James Guy met with the defendant, an old acquaintance, at a St. Paul\u2019s grill from which the two men later left together to go to the motel for drinks. About 12:30 a.m. Guy and the defendant went out to eat and the defendant met and talked with several of his friends. After eating the defendant appeared to offer a friend, Robert Clark, a ride home. Instead, the defendant drove to a secluded dirt road where he and Clark got out of the car pretending that they \u201chad to use the bathroom.\u201d Clark cursed obscenities at Guy and threatened to shoot him. The defendant took Guy\u2019s wallet and divided the money while Clark held a knife on Guy\u2019s neck. Guy managed to effect a successful escape and later notified the police authorities.\nFrom a judgment imposing a prison sentence, the defendant appealed to this Court.\nAttorney General Edmisten, by Associate Attorney Sandra M. King, for the State.\nMary Ann Tally, Assistant Public Defender, Twelfth Judicial District, for defendant appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0393-01",
  "first_page_order": 421,
  "last_page_order": 423
}