{
  "id": 8547767,
  "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. WILLIAM EDWARD YOUNG, JR.",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Young",
  "decision_date": "1976-10-06",
  "docket_number": "No. 7614SC390",
  "first_page": "107",
  "last_page": "108",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "31 N.C. App. 107"
    }
  ],
  "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": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 179,
    "char_count": 2044,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.687,
    "sha256": "0a24d90d9922078c7076885ccb2e6af96a48188789749ab5365165aff43bf643",
    "simhash": "1:f3f832ce88ff8825",
    "word_count": 331
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:36:26.493722+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges Morris and Hedrick concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. WILLIAM EDWARD YOUNG, JR."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "ARNOLD, Judge.\nThe case of State v. Franklin Alphin Ward III (No. 7614SC389), filed simultaneously herewith, is controlling in this case. The petition should have been dismissed.\nReversed.\nJudges Morris and Hedrick concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "ARNOLD, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney General Edmisten, by Assistant Attorney General Archie W. Anders, for the State.",
      "Loflin & Loflin, by Thomas F. Loflin, III, for defendant appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. WILLIAM EDWARD YOUNG, JR.\nNo. 7614SCS90\n(Filed 6 October 1976)\nAppeal by respondent from Preston, Judge. Judgment entered 12 December 1975 in Superior Court, DURHAM County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 16 September 1976.\nThis appeal is from a proceeding to have respondent declared an \u201chabitual offender\u201d of the North Carolina traffic laws and to revoke his license to operate a motor vehicle for a period of five years.\nRespondent was convicted of his third offense of driving under the influence in, September-1974. The first two convictions occurred in 1970 and 1972, and on 18 October 1974 respondent\u2019s driver\u2019s license was revoked by the Department of Motor Vehicles with provision that he could apply for reinstatement in three years. On 3 March 1975 the District Attorney was notified, pursuant to G.S. 20-220, et seq., that respondent was considered an habitual offender, and on 25 September 1975 a petition was filed to have respondent adjudged an habitual offender.\nAt the hearing on 10 December 1975, which was held on the petition, the trial court made findings of fact and concluded that it had no discretion to consider any defense of laches in these proceedings, but that if it had such discretion it would dismiss the petition because it was not filed until over a year after the third conviction, because the proceeding was not instituted \u201cforthwith\u201d; and because respondent had suffered prejudice as a result of the delay in instituting the proceeding.\nRespondent was found to be an habitual offender as defined in G.S. 20-221 and barred from operating a motor vehicle on the highways of North Carolina. He appealed.\nAttorney General Edmisten, by Assistant Attorney General Archie W. Anders, for the State.\nLoflin & Loflin, by Thomas F. Loflin, III, for defendant appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0107-01",
  "first_page_order": 135,
  "last_page_order": 136
}