{
  "id": 8555597,
  "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. WILLIAM FRANK TYLER",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Tyler",
  "decision_date": "1969-05-28",
  "docket_number": "No. 695SC268",
  "first_page": "682",
  "last_page": "684",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "4 N.C. App. 682"
    }
  ],
  "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": "42 S.E. 2d 593",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "227 N.C. 412",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8625637
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/227/0412-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "160 S.E. 2d 79",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "1 N.C. App. 99",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8550346
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/1/0099-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 219,
    "char_count": 3070,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.611,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.20601471359913262
    },
    "sha256": "0e06135847677cabcbf02ee0f134c034fc53d2037714f01d2332ea6fcb4128f1",
    "simhash": "1:8d7f2ef94437b06b",
    "word_count": 530
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:50:38.610889+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Campbell and MoeRis, JJ., concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. WILLIAM FRANK TYLER"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "MallaRD, C.J.\nIn spite of the fact this case and the case of State v. Robie C. Allen were tried together and treated as one case in the trial court, two separate records were filed in this Court and each case was docketed as a separate appeal. Where two or more cases are consolidated and tried together as one case and there are two or more appeals arising from the action, ordinarily only one copy of the record and the proceedings of the trial in the trial tribunal should be filed in this Court. Rule 19(b), Rules of Practice in the Court of Appeals of North Carolina; see State v. Hamilton, 1 N.C. App. 99, 160 S.E. 2d 79; Hoke v. Greyhound Corp., 227 N.C. 412, 42 S.E. 2d 593.\n-We deem it expedient to point out that we feel it was not necessary that counsel for defendant appellant docket a separate record on appeal for each defendant. Each defendant makes the same assignment of error, and each defendant is represented in this Court by the same attorney. For the reasons stated in State v. Allen, supra, opinion by Parker, J., filed this date, we hold that the judgment appealed from was supported by the verdict, and, in the entire trial we find no prejudicial error.\nAffirmed.\nCampbell and MoeRis, JJ., concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "MallaRD, C.J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Robert Morgan, Attorney General, by Ralph Moody, Deputy Attorney General, and Carlos W. Murray, Jr., Staff Attorney, for the State.",
      "Yow \u2022& Yow, by Lionel L. Yoio for defendant appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. WILLIAM FRANK TYLER\nNo. 695SC268\n(Filed 28 May 1969)\nCriminal Law \u00a7 154\u2014 appeals irom consolidated trial \u2014 one record on appeal\nWhere two or .'more cases are consolidated and' tried, together as one case and there are two or more appeals, arising from the action, ordinarily only one copy of the record and the proceedings in the trial tribunal should be filed in the Court of Appeals. Court of Appeals Rule No. 19(b).\nAppeal by defendant from Bundy, J., 12 December 1968 Session, New Hanover Superior Court.\nThe defendant appellant, William Franklin Tyler, and one Robie C. Allen were tried jointly upon identical bills of indictment, except for the name of the defendant, charging felonious breaking and entering, larceny, and receiving, and also except as to the receiving charge in the Tyler case where the defendant Tyler\u2019s name erroneously appears as the owner of the property.\nThe State offered evidence which tended to show that William Franklin Tyler and Robie C. Allen on 19 October 1968 broke into and entered the Southside Lunch at the corner of Front and Castle Streets in Wilmington, North Carolina. The evidence is fully set out in State v. Allen (filed 28 May 1969).\nNeither defendant took the stand or offered any evidence. The court allowed defendants\u2019 motions for nonsuit as to the counts in the bills of indictment charging larceny and receiving, and submitted the case to the jury solely on the count of felonious breaking and entering. The jury returned verdicts of guilty as charged of felonious breaking and entering. From judgment sentencing each to prison for a term of ten years, both defendants appealed.\nRobert Morgan, Attorney General, by Ralph Moody, Deputy Attorney General, and Carlos W. Murray, Jr., Staff Attorney, for the State.\nYow \u2022& Yow, by Lionel L. Yoio for defendant appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0682-01",
  "first_page_order": 702,
  "last_page_order": 704
}