{
  "id": 8551619,
  "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. GEORGE DIXON",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Dixon",
  "decision_date": "1969-07-23",
  "docket_number": "No. 6914SC345",
  "first_page": "514",
  "last_page": "515",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "5 N.C. App. 514"
    }
  ],
  "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": "153 S.E. 2d 330",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "269 N.C. 683",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8565701
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/269/0683-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "166 S.E. 2d 458",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "4 N.C. App. 249",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8552741
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/4/0249-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 232,
    "char_count": 3178,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.566,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.20592049961213954
    },
    "sha256": "f434785c8f4800864587a0315b3f4e7647a0b47ee000d2a67e2da71bd275d587",
    "simhash": "1:1b699a2d721e3857",
    "word_count": 529
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:58:43.915660+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. GEORGE DIXON"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "MORRIS, J.\nDefendant\u2019s only contention is that the judgment of the court of imprisonment for 12 months for felonious escape constitutes cruel and unusual punishment, in violation of Article I, Section 14, of the Constitution of North Carolina and the Eighth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.\nIn State v. Stewart, 4 N.C. App. 249, 166 S.E. 2d 458, Campbell, J., quoted the Supreme Court in State v. Elliott, 269 N.C. 683, 153 S.E. 2d 330:\n\u201cWe have held in case after case that when the punishment does not exceed the limits fixed by the statute, it cannot be considered cruel and unusual punishment in a constitutional sense.\u201d\nThe statute, G.S. 148-45, provides for punishment of \u201cimprisonment for not less than six months nor more than two years.\u201d Further, unless specifically otherwise ordered by the trial judge, the sentence is to begin at the termination of any and all sentences defendant may be serving. Obviously, the judgment is well within the maximum and cannot constitute cruel and unusual punishment.\nDefendant further argues in his brief \u201c[t]hat on the day in question, July 24, 1967, the defendant committed no acts of violence or made any overt threats to the lawful authorities of the State Prison system to categorize his acts as a felony, this requiring a stiffer sentence, and has no reasonable relation to the classification of the crime, which in turn deprives the defendant of equal protection of the laws as set out in Article I, Section 7, Constitution of North Carolina, and the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States.\u201d The general principles of law cited by defendant have no application to the question raised by him. While the argument is novel, we find it to be without merit.\nAffirmed.\nCampbell and BrocK, JJ., concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "MORRIS, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney General Robert Morgan by Staff Attorney Dale Shepherd for the State.",
      "Blackwell M. \u25a0 Brogden for defendant appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. GEORGE DIXON\nNo. 6914SC345\n(Filed 23 July 1969)\n1. Constitutional Daw \u00a7 36; Escape \u00a7 1\u2014 punishment for felonious escape \u2014 cruel and unusual punishment\nSentence of 12 months for felonious escape is within the maximum provided by G.S. 148-45 and cannot be considered cruel and unusual in a constitutional sense.\n2. Constitutional Daw \u00a7 20; Escape \u00a7 1\u2014 equal protection \u2014 felonious escape\nThere is no merit in defendant\u2019s contention that he was deprived of equal protection of the laws by his conviction for felonious escape in that on the date of the escape he committed no acts of violence or made any overt threats to lawful authorities of the state prison system to categorize his acts as a felony.\nAppeal from Brewer, J., 24 February 1969 Criminal Session, Superior Court of Dueham.\nDefendant was charged with felonious escape. He signed a waiver of appointment of counsel and entered a written plea of guilty. The court entered judgment imposing a prison sentence of 12 months to commence at the termination of any and all sentences which defendant is now serving. Defendant excepted and appealed, and the court, upon a finding of indigency, appointed counsel to perfect the appeal, ordering Durham County to pay the costs thereof.\nAttorney General Robert Morgan by Staff Attorney Dale Shepherd for the State.\nBlackwell M. \u25a0 Brogden for defendant appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0514-01",
  "first_page_order": 536,
  "last_page_order": 537
}