{
  "id": 8547801,
  "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. CLIFFORD JOHNSON",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Johnson",
  "decision_date": "1969-12-17",
  "docket_number": "No. 6918SC547",
  "first_page": "53",
  "last_page": "54",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "7 N.C. App. 53"
    }
  ],
  "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": "150 S.E. 2d 216",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1966,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "268 N.C. 174",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8560791
      ],
      "year": 1966,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/268/0174-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "147 S.E. 2d 570",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1966,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "267 N.C. 126",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8558640
      ],
      "year": 1966,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/267/0126-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "165 S.E. 2d 674",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1969,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "4 N.C. App. 109",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8551701
      ],
      "year": 1969,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/4/0109-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 259,
    "char_count": 4679,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.58,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 2.3755656053385885e-07,
      "percentile": 0.796247966580291
    },
    "sha256": "53b8087c385888d00bc4c7540f57720de88320c7e31fd55f98fc45afe0e97bb0",
    "simhash": "1:c9a5c161075c8da8",
    "word_count": 776
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:45:53.911218+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Mallakd, C.J., and MobRIs, J., concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. CLIFFORD JOHNSON"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "HedRICK, J.\nIn his brief appellant discusses two assignments of error: (1) That the defendant\u2019s plea of guilty to the charges in the bills of indictment was not entered freely, understandingly and voluntarily, and (2) that the sentences imposed were cruel, unjust and excessive. Defendant\u2019s counsel concedes that these assignments of error are without merit.\nThe record contains an affidavit executed by the defendant setting out, among other things, that he understood the charges against him, that he did in fact plead guilty to the charges, that he understood he had a right to plead not guilty and be tried by a jury, that he understood that upon his plea of guilty he could be imprisoned for as much as life, that he was satisfied with the services of his attorney, and that he freely, understandingly and voluntarily authorized and instructed his lawyer to enter on his behalf a plea of guilty. The record further shows that the trial judge, while the defendant was under oath, asked the defendant essentially the same questions as were contained in the affidavit, and that the defendant's answers are in the record to the effect that he understood the charges against him, that he understood he had a right to plead not guilty and be tried by a jury, that he did in fact plead guilty, that he understood that upon his plea of guilty he could be imprisoned for as much as life, that no one had offered any promise to him to induce him to plead guilty, and that he freely, understandingly and voluntarily authorized and instructed his lawyer to enter a plea of guilty on his behalf. The defendant\u2019s plea of guilty will not be disturbed on appeal when the record shows that said plea was entered freely, understandingly and voluntarily. State v. Reed, 4 N.C. App. 109, 165 S.E. 2d 674 (1969). We note that the trial judge failed to find as a fact and adjudicate that the defendant\u2019s plea of guilty was made freely, understandingly and voluntarily. The better practice would be for the trial judge to make such an adjudication; however, the failure to do so in the instant case was not prejudicial error.\nThe maximum punishment for the felony of breaking and entering is ten years imprisonment. G.S. 14-54. The maximum punishment for the felony of safecracking is life imprisonment. G.S. 14-89.1. The maximum punishment for the felony of larceny is ten years. G.S. 14-70. Punishment which does not exceed the statutory limits cannot be considered cruel and unusual punishment in a constitutional sense. State v. Davis, 267 N.C. 126, 147 S.E. 2d 570 (1966); State v. Bruce, 268 N.C. 174, 150 S.E. 2d 216 (1966); State v. Reed, supra.\nWe hold that the defendant was properly sentenced and that the sentences imposed were within the statutory limits and violated no provision of the Federal or State Constitutions.\nWe have carefully examined the entire record on appeal and find\nNo error.\nMallakd, C.J., and MobRIs, J., concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "HedRICK, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Robert Morgan, Attorney General, and Claude W. Harris, Trial Attorney, for the State.",
      "Bencini, Wyatt, Early & Harris, by A. Doyle Early, Jr., for the defendant appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. CLIFFORD JOHNSON\nNo. 6918SC547\n(Filed 17 December 1969)\n1. Criminal Law \u00a7 33\u2014 guilty plea \u2014 appellate review\nDefendant\u2019s plea of guilty will not be disturbed on appeal when the record shows that said plea was entered freely, understandingly and voluntarily.\n3. Criminal Law \u00a7 33\u2014 guilty plea \u2014 voluntariness \u2014 necessity for findings of fact\nFailure of the trial court to find as a fact and adjudicate that defendant\u2019s plea of guilty was made freely, understandingly and voluntarily is not prejudicial error where the court\u2019s questioning of defendant under oath and an affidavit executed by defendant show the plea was SO' entered, although the better practice would be for the trial court to make such an adjudication.\n3. Constitutional Law \u00a7 36\u2014 cruel and unusual punishment\nPunishment which does not exceed the statutory limits cannot be considered cruel and unusual punishment in the constitutional sense.\nON certiorari from May, S.J., 10 March 1969 Session of Guilford Superior Court.\nThe defendant was tried on 10 March 1969 on separate bills of indictment charging him with auto larceny, safecracking, breaking and entering and larceny. The defendant, through his court-appointed attorney, in open court entered a plea of guilty to all charges.\nThe court, after hearing evidence, entered judgment that the defendant be imprisoned for a term of ten years for auto larceny, twenty-five years for safecracking and ten years for breaking and entering and larceny to run concurrently.\nTo this judgment the defendant excepted and gave notice of appeal.\nRobert Morgan, Attorney General, and Claude W. Harris, Trial Attorney, for the State.\nBencini, Wyatt, Early & Harris, by A. Doyle Early, Jr., for the defendant appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0053-01",
  "first_page_order": 75,
  "last_page_order": 76
}