{
  "id": 12170071,
  "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. JAMES LARRY ARNETTE",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Arnette",
  "decision_date": "1987-05-05",
  "docket_number": "No. 8613SC790",
  "first_page": "498",
  "last_page": "500",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "85 N.C. App. 498"
    }
  ],
  "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": "355 S.E. 2d 498",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1987,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "85 N.C. App. 492",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        12170062
      ],
      "year": 1987,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/85/0492-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 218,
    "char_count": 2623,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.905,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.24691285090366272
    },
    "sha256": "ccb87ebf5a19e9d62d3f6f7c11d65efa63865c51b06af2b1b2cb34b27b513e7c",
    "simhash": "1:1e4b6d3855854ea6",
    "word_count": 416
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T23:00:25.781259+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges Arnold and Phillips concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. JAMES LARRY ARNETTE"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "ORR, Judge.\nDefendant raised numerous assignments of error on appeal.\nSince the identical issues, arising out of the same sentencing hearing, are addressed in detail in our prior opinion, State v. Arnette, 85 N.C. App. 492, 355 S.E. 2d 498 (1987), we decline to repeat this discussion, and instead, incorporate the above mentioned case. In that case, after reviewing the assignments of error, we concluded that defendant\u2019s sentencing hearing was free from error. Likewise, in the case sub judice we conclude that there was no error.\nNo error.\nJudges Arnold and Phillips concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "ORR, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney General Lacy H. Thornburg, by Assistant Attorney General Debbie K. Wright, for the State.",
      "Mark A. Lewis, for defendant appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. JAMES LARRY ARNETTE\nNo. 8613SC790\n(Filed 5 May 1987)\nAppeal by defendant from Clark, Judge. Judgment entered 26 March 1986 and Order entered 28 May 1986 in Superior Court, Brunswick County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 6 January 1987.\nDefendant, pursuant to a plea agreement, pled guilty to twenty-three felony charges and eleven misdemeanor charges, which arose out of a two month crime spree in which a number of automobiles were broken into and their contents stolen. In return for the guilty pleas, the State dismissed three felony and eleven misdemeanor charges also pending against defendant, agreed that the first five years of any active sentence received as a result of the guilty pleas would run concurrently with the sentence defendant was then serving, and limited to thirty years the active sentence defendant could receive for all charges pled to.\nIn conformity with the plea agreement, defendant pled guilty on 13 February 1986 to one charge of breaking and entering an automobile and one charge of felonious possession of stolen property. The two charges, arising out of an automobile break-in on 31 August 1985, were consolidated for sentencing.\nAt the 26 March 1986 sentencing hearing defendant presented evidence that he was a long-term drug abuser with a nine hundred dollar a day drug habit. Judge Clark found that no mitigating factors were present and found in aggravation of defendant\u2019s sentence that defendant had prior convictions for criminal offenses punishable by more than sixty days\u2019 confinement. Defendant received the maximum permissible sentence of ten years for the consolidated charges. Following sentencing, defendant filed a motion for appropriate relief requesting a new hearing, contending that the sentence imposed was not supported by the evidence. The court heard and denied the motion.\nFrom the judgment and order, defendant appeals.\nAttorney General Lacy H. Thornburg, by Assistant Attorney General Debbie K. Wright, for the State.\nMark A. Lewis, for defendant appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0498-01",
  "first_page_order": 526,
  "last_page_order": 528
}
