{ "id": 8553006, "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. HAROLD MOSTELLER", "name_abbreviation": "State v. Mosteller", "decision_date": "1968-11-13", "docket_number": "No. 6825SC255", "first_page": "67", "last_page": "69", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "3 N.C. App. 67" } ], "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": "157 S.E. 2d 664", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "272 N.C. 146", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8571637 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/272/0146-01" ] }, { "cite": "151 S.E. 2d 203", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "268 N.C. 603", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8564295 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/268/0603-01" ] }, { "cite": "150 S.E. 2d 216", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "268 N.C. 174", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8560791 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/268/0174-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 237, "char_count": 3385, "ocr_confidence": 0.577, "pagerank": { "raw": 1.7995017119731845e-07, "percentile": 0.7162226446406721 }, "sha256": "539675d9cf437911ad977b1ab5c1b313a7cc63fd3723856e1b8443b00f187ecf", "simhash": "1:9557ce27b059275e", "word_count": 554 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:33:22.618564+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "BROCK and Britt, JJ., concur." ], "parties": [ "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. HAROLD MOSTELLER" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Parker, J.\nThe sentences imposed were within the maximum authorized by G.S. 14-120. Appellant does not attack the constitutionality of that statute but pleads that the sentences imposed upon him in this case were abnormally long in view of the relatively small amount of money involved in each of the three checks and in view of the fact that it was his father\u2019s name which was forged. It is, however, firmly established in our jurisprudence that when the punishment imposed does not exceed the limits fixed by statute, it cannot be considered cruel and unusual punishment in a constitutional sense. State v. Bruce, 268 N.C. 174, 150 S.E. 2d 216. The court\u2019s authority to provide that two or more such sentences shall run consecutively is also well established. State v. Dawson, 268 N.C. 603, 151 S.E. 2d 203. Even imposition of two life sentences to run 'consecutively does not contravene the constitutional prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. State v. Bruce, supra.\nBefore imposing sentence, the trial judge had the opportunity to observe the defendant and was in position to know something of his previous history.\u2019Thp sentences imposed were within statutory limits and within the authority of the trial court and will not be disturbed on appeal. State v. Faison, 272 N.C. 146, 157 S.E. 2d 664.\nNo error.\nBROCK and Britt, JJ., concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "Parker, J." } ], "attorneys": [ "Attorney General T. W. Bruton and Assistant Attorney General Millard B. Rich, Jr., for the State.", "Stanley J. Come for defendant appellant." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. HAROLD MOSTELLER\nNo. 6825SC255\n(Filed 13 November 1968)\n1. Constitutional Law \u00a7 36; Criminal Law \u00a7 140; Forgery \u00a7 2\u2014 cruel and unusual punishment\nUpon defendant\u2019s pleas of guilty to three charges of uttering a forged check, sentences of six to ten years imposed in each case, the sentences to run consecutively, are within the maximum authorized by G.S. 14-120 and cannot be considered cruel and unusual punishment in the constitutional sense.\n2. Criminal Law \u00a7 140\u2014 consecutive sentences\nThe trial court has authority to provide that two or more sentences imposed for separate offenses shall run consecutively.\nS. Criminal Law \u00a7 138\u2014 severity of sentence \u2014 consideration on appeal\nWhere the sentences imposed are within statutory limits and within the authority of the trial court, they will not be disturbed on appeal.\nAppeal by defendant from Falls, J., 1 April 1968 Mixed Session of Catawba Superior Court. \u2022\u2019\nAt the April 1968 Session of Superior Court of Catawba County the grand jury returned three true bills of indictment each of which charged defendant on two counts, the first charging the making of a forged check, the second charging the uttering of a forged check knowing it to be forged. Various violations of the traffic laws, not pertinent to this appeal, were also pending against the defendant, in which pleas were taken and judgments entered. The defendant, represented by court-appointed counsel, pleaded guilty to uttering a forged check in each of the three indictments. The court entered judgment of imprisonment in the State\u2019s Prison of not less than six nor more than ten years in each case, the sentences to run consecutively. The defendant appealed, making as his sole assignment of error that the prison sentences imposed constituted cruel and unusual punishment forbidden by Article I, Section 14, of the Constitution of North Carolina.\nAttorney General T. W. Bruton and Assistant Attorney General Millard B. Rich, Jr., for the State.\nStanley J. Come for defendant appellant." }, "file_name": "0067-01", "first_page_order": 87, "last_page_order": 89 }