{
  "id": 8554621,
  "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. VANDY B. CLEAVES",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Cleaves",
  "decision_date": "1969-04-30",
  "docket_number": "No. 6926SC108",
  "first_page": "506",
  "last_page": "508",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "4 N.C. App. 506"
    }
  ],
  "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": "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": "164 S.E. 2d 27",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "3 N.C. App. 67",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8553006
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/3/0067-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "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"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "146 S.E. 2d 800",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "266 N.C. 640",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8562314
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/266/0640-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "153 S.E. 2d 34",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "269 N.C. 521",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8564570
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/269/0521-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 256,
    "char_count": 3745,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.599,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 9.000952511807124e-08,
      "percentile": 0.5031538518268825
    },
    "sha256": "5956775728d32a361d87f20cb18812a8ef5ff9667fbd1d886b73b52050417dd2",
    "simhash": "1:b70a56229dfe2f5c",
    "word_count": 612
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:50:38.610889+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Mallard, C.J., and Britt, J., concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. VANDY B. CLEAVES"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Parker, J.\nWhen a defendant voluntarily pleads guilty to a charge of crime, the only questions presented on appeal are whether any error appears upon the face of the record proper and whether the sentences imposed were in excess of statutory limits. State v. Caldwell, 269 N.C. 521, 153 S.E. 2d 34; State v. Darnell, 266 N.C. 640, 146 S.E. 2d 800.\nThe sole assignment of error in the record is that the punishment imposed was \u201ccruel and unusual under the law and facts of this case.\u201d The assignment is without merit. It is 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 in a constitutional sense. State v. Bruce, 268 N.C. 174, 150 S.E. 2d 216; State v. Mosteller, 3 N.C. App. 67, 164 S.E. 2d 27. The sentences imposed upon appellant here did not exceed statutory limits. G.S. 14-3; G.S. 14-107. The court\u2019s authority to provide that such sentences shall run consecutively is also well established. State v. Dawson, 268 N.C. 603, 151 S.E. 2d 203.\nNo error appears upon the face of this record; the punishment was within limits permitted by law. We find\nNo error.\nMallard, C.J., and Britt, J., concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Parker, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney General Robert Morgan and Staff Attorney R. S. Weathers for the State.",
      "Michael G. Plumides for defendant appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. VANDY B. CLEAVES\nNo. 6926SC108\n(Filed 30 April 1969)\n1. Criminal Law \u00a7 146\u2014 guilty plea \u2014 appellate review\nWhen a defendant voluntarily pleads guilty to a charge of crime, the only questions presented on appeal are whether any error appears on the face of the record proper and whether the sentence imposed is in excess of the statutory limits.\n2. Constitutional Law \u00a7 36\u2014 cruel and unusual punishment\nPunishment which does not exceed the limits fixed by statute cannot be considered cruel and unusual in a constitutional sense.\n3. Criminal Law \u00a7 138\u2014 consecutive sentences\nThe trial court has authority to provide that sentences imposed upon defendant\u2019s pleas of guilty to separate offenses run consecutively.\nAppeal by defendant from Falls, J., 30 September 1968 Session of MecKleNburg Superior Court.\nBy five separate warrants, proper in form, defendant was charged with issuing worthless checks in violation of G.S. 14-107, the checks being in amounts of $16.80, $25.00, $56.94, $21.84, and $86.32 respectively. In recorder\u2019s court defendant pleaded guilty in all cases. From sentences imposed, he appealed to the superior court. In superior court he was represented by court-appointed counsel. He again pleaded guilty in all five cases. Judgments were entered imposing active prison sentences of 30 days in each of the three cases involving checks for amounts not exceeding $50.00, and two years Jp each of the two cases involving checks exceeding $50.00, all sentences to run consecutively and the first sentence to commence at the expiration of a sentence which had been previously imposed upon defendant in an earlier case on his plea of guilty to the crime of embezzlement. The previous sentence had originally been suspended and defendant placed on probation. Following defendant\u2019s guilty pleas and sentencing in recorder\u2019s court, probation was revoked after due notice to defendant and upon a finding that he had wilfully violated the terms and conditions of the probation judgment.\nFrom the judgments imposed in the worthless check cases, defendant appealed. The court, on account of defendant\u2019s indigency, appointed the counsel who had represented defendant at the trial to represent him in connection with his appeal and ordered Mecklen-burg County to pay the cost of obtaining a transcript of the trial proceedings and of providing the record- and brief on appeal.\nAttorney General Robert Morgan and Staff Attorney R. S. Weathers for the State.\nMichael G. Plumides for defendant appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0506-01",
  "first_page_order": 526,
  "last_page_order": 528
}