{
  "id": 8554727,
  "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. ROGER RICKEY WILLIAMS",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Williams",
  "decision_date": "1969-04-30",
  "docket_number": "No. 6926SC213",
  "first_page": "515",
  "last_page": "517",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "4 N.C. App. 515"
    }
  ],
  "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": "11 S.E. 2d 303",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "218 N.C. 454",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8620940
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/218/0454-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 233,
    "char_count": 3428,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.565,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.2059971450072958
    },
    "sha256": "e74f7a22bf5668768c4c1afe5436e1cda00b25de887cb76a791ed6316372bbfd",
    "simhash": "1:7919a0368486042b",
    "word_count": 566
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:50:38.610889+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Campbell and BROCK, JJ., concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. ROGER RICKEY WILLIAMS"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Morris, J.\nThe only assignment of error is the defendant\u2019s contention, contained in his letter accepted as notice of appeal-, that he was promised by his counsel that if he entered a plea of guilty he would be placed on probation. The record before us contains no exceptions taken at the time of trial. However, since an appeal is itself an exception to the judgment and to any other matter appearing on the face of the record, State v. Barnett, 218 N.C. 454, 11 S.E. 2d 303, we have carefully examined the record and find no error on the face thereon.\nThe signed plea is a part of the record, and the answers to the questions are clear and unequivocal. The certificate of the court thereon is complete and finds that the,plea of guilty by defendant was freely, understanding^ and voluntarily made, and was made without undue influence, compulsion or duress, and without promise of leniency.\nThe judgment of the trial court is\nAffirmed.\nCampbell and BROCK, JJ., concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Morris, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney General Robert Morgan by Assistant Attorney General William W. Melvin and Staff Attorney T. Buie Costen for the State.",
      "T. O. Stennett for defendant appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. ROGER RICKEY WILLIAMS\nNo. 6926SC213\n(Filed 30 April 1969)\n1. Criminal Law \u00a7 161\u2014 appeal as exception to the judgment\nAn appeal is itself an exception to the judgment and to any other matter appearing on the face of the record.\n2. Criminal Law \u00a7 23\u2014 validity of guilty plea \u2014 contention that defendant was promised probation\nDefendant, who received active prison sentence upon his plea of guilty to breaking and entering and larceny, is not entitled to a new trial on contention that he was promised by his privately-retained trial counsel he would be placed on probation if he entered the plea of guilty, the certificate of the court in the record showing that defendant\u2019s written plea of guilty was freely, understandingly and voluntarily made.\nAppeal by defendant from Copeland, S.J., 2 December 1968 Schedule \u201cC\u201d Session, Criminal Term, Superior Court of MecicleN-BURG.\nDefendant was charged, under proper bill of indictment, with breaking and entering and larceny. He was represented by privately retained counsel and entered a plea of guilty at the 23 September 1968 Schedule \u201cC\u201d Criminal Session of the Superior Court of Meck-lenburg County. Judge Thornburg heard the evidence, continued prayer for judgment, and entered an order requesting the State Department of Corrections to make a pre-sentence diagnostic study of defendant and for that purpose he was committed to the State Department of Correction for 60 days. The diagnostic study was made at Polk Youth Center and defendant was returned to Mecklenburg on 25 November 1968. The defendant\u2019 was before Judge Copeland for sentencing on 13 December 1968, represented by his counsel. Judge Copeland entered judgment that defendant be imprisoned for not less than three nor more than five years with the recommendation that sentence be served at Polk Youth Center. Letter of defendant dated 18 December 1968 was accepted by the court as notice of appeal. Privately retained counsel requested that he be permitted to withdraw because the basis of appeal was alleged conduct of counsel. The request was granted, and upon defendant\u2019s request, counsel was appointed to perfect the appeal and the county was directed to pay costs of original and three copies of the transcript and the costs of mimeographing.\nAttorney General Robert Morgan by Assistant Attorney General William W. Melvin and Staff Attorney T. Buie Costen for the State.\nT. O. Stennett for defendant appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0515-01",
  "first_page_order": 535,
  "last_page_order": 537
}