{ "id": 11303866, "name": "STATE v. OSCAR EDWARD PARKER", "name_abbreviation": "State v. Parker", "decision_date": "1941-11-26", "docket_number": "", "first_page": "416", "last_page": "420", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "220 N.C. 416" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "N.C.", "id": 9292, "name": "Supreme Court of North Carolina" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 5, "name_long": "North Carolina", "name": "N.C." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "189 N. C., 401", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8654337 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/189/0401-01" ] }, { "cite": "141 N. C., 844", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 11254244 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/141/0844-01" ] }, { "cite": "94 N. C., 904", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8652408 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/94/0904-01" ] }, { "cite": "78 N. C., 423", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8695111 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/78/0423-01" ] }, { "cite": "189 N. C., 151", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8653648 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/189/0151-01" ] }, { "cite": "218 N. C., 769", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8624806 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/218/0769-01" ] }, { "cite": "204 N. C., 48", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8611014 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/204/0048-01" ] }, { "cite": "145 Mass., 381", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Mass.", "case_ids": [ 770421 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/mass/145/0381-01" ] }, { "cite": "174 N. C., 796", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 11255859 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/174/0796-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 496, "char_count": 10680, "ocr_confidence": 0.469, "pagerank": { "raw": 3.3203556502846656e-07, "percentile": 0.8729703932545875 }, "sha256": "59c1326821052a95318e2286a795bb0dbc01b02ce6b726efef81f9df18804218", "simhash": "1:0f22a5ee7e23f7cd", "word_count": 1907 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T14:44:04.432821+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "STATE v. OSCAR EDWARD PARKER." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "ClaricsoN, J.\nThe following are the exceptions and assignments of error made by defendant: \u201cThe defendant says that his Honor erred in his judgment in sentencing the defendant to work on the public highway of North Carolina for a period of six months, as set forth in Exception No. 1. His Honor erred in sentencing the defendant to work for a period of twelve months for temporary use of an automobile when no damage or misconduct, except the use of the automobile, as set forth in Exception No. 2.\u201d Neither one can be sustained.\nThe defendant entered a plea of nolo contendere (1) for the larceny of an automobile, for which he was sentenced for twelve months; (2) to the operation of an automobile while intoxicated, for which he was sentenced six months. As set forth in the judgment, the defendant was an old offender of the laws of his State for many serious offenses, but mercy was shown him by the same judge who sentenced him in this case. The defendant in the two cases entered a plea of nolo contendere.\nIn S. v. Burnett, 174 N. C., 796 (797), is the following: \u201cA plea of nolo contendere, which is still allowed in some courts, is regarded by some writers as a g-wasi-confession of guilt. Whether that be true or not, it is equivalent to a plea of guilty in so far as it gives the court the power to punish. It seems to be universally held that when the plea is accepted by the court, sentence is imposed as upon a plea of guilty. Com. v. Ingersoll, 145 Mass., 381; 12 Cyc., 354.\u201d In re Stiers, 204 N. C., 48 (50).\nIn S. v. Wilson, 218 N. C., 769 (774), it is written: \u201cThe court below did not exceed the limit of the statute. Within the limit of the statute the court is given the discretion to fix the punishment. We see no abuse of the discretion. As said in S. v. Swindell, 189 N. C., 151 (155): \u2018Though the punishment is great, the protection due to society is greater. The hope is to amend the offender, to deprive him of the opportunity to do future mischief, and, above all, an example to deter others.\u2019 \u201d The value of the truck stolen was $325.00.\nN. C. Code, 1939 (Micbie), section 4249, is as follows: \u201cAll distinctions between petit and grand larceny, where the same has had the benefit of clergy, are abolished; and the offense' of felonious stealing, where no other punishment shall be specifically prescribed therefor by statute, shall be punished as petit larceny is: Provided, that in cases of much aggravation, or of hardened offenders, the court may, in its discretion, sentence the offender to the state\u2019s prison for a period not exceeding ten years.\u201d\nSection 4251: \u201cThe larceny of property, or the receiving of stolen goods knowing them to be stolen, of the value of not more than twenty dollars, is hereby declared a misdemeanor and the punishment therefor shall be in the discretion of the court,\u201d etc.\nSec. 2621 (286) : \u201cIt shall be unlawful and punishable, as provided in section 2621 (325), for any person, whether licensed or not, who is a habitual user of narcotic drugs or any person who is under the influence of intoxicating liquor or narcotic drugs, to drive any vehicle upon the highways within this state.\u201d\nSec. 2621 (325) : \u201cEvery person who is convicted of violation of section 2621 (286), relating to habitual users of narcotic drugs or driving while under the influence of intoxicating liquor or narcotic drugs, shall be punished by imprisonment in the county or municipal jail for not less than thirty days nor more than one year, or by fine of not less than fifty dollars ($50.00) nor more than one thousand dollars ($1,000.00), or by both such fine and imprisonment. On a second or subsequent conviction for the same offense he shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than two years or fined not more than one thousand dollars ($1,000.00), or by both fine and imprisonment, in the discretion of the court.\u201d\nSec. 4506: \u201cAny person who shall, while intoxicated or under the influence of intoxicating liquors or bitters, morphine or other opiates, operate a motor vehicle upon any public highway or cartway or other road, over which the public has a right to travel, of any county or the streets of any city or town in this State, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and upon conviction shall be fined not less than fifty dollars or imprisoned not less than thirty days, or both, at the discretion of the court, and the judge shall upon conviction, deny said person or persons the right to drive a motor vehicle on any of the roads defined in this act for a period of not more than twelve months nor less than ninety days.\u201d\nIt is well settled that when no time is fixed by the statute, an imprisonment for two years will not be held cruel and unusual. S. v. Driver, 78 N. C., 423; S. v. Miller, 94 N. C., 904; S. v. Farrington, 141 N. C., 844 (845).\nThe defendant contends \u201cThat the judgment in this case for the operation of an automobile while under the influence of liquor, is void, for tbe reason tbat tbe statute fixes tbe penalty of a fine of Fifty ($50.00) Dollars and tbe surrender of bis license, and denying tbe defendant tbe right to drive an automobile for a period of twelve (12) months.\u201d We cannot so bold.\nTbe judgment of tbe court below imposes an imprisonment of six months. Tbe above statute allows this \u2014 it says \u201cShall be fined not less than Fifty ($50.00) Dollars or imprisoned not less than thirty (30) days.\u201d Section 4173 prescribes punishment for misdemeanors.\nTbe defendant contends tbat tbe bail fixed by tbe trial judge pending appeal was excessive. This Court, in tbe case of S. v. Bradsher, 189 N. C., 401 (404), discussing tbe question of a defendant\u2019s right to bail pending appeal to the Supreme Court, said: \u201cDefendant, T. C. Brad-sher, having been convicted of a misdemeanor, appealed from tbe judgment of tbe court. Tbe court was required by statute to allow him bail, pending tbe appeal. C. S., 4653. But for this statute, tbe allowance of bail to defendant, after conviction, would have been in tbe sound discretion of tbe court. After conviction, there is no constitutional right to bail. Article I, section 14, of tbe Constitution of North Carolina, in so far as it guarantees, by implication, tbe right to bail does not apply. 3 R. C. L., p. 15; 6 O. J., 966.\u201d\nTbe question of bond on appeal is largely in tbe discretion of tbe court below, and we can see no abuse of discretion on tbe facts of record in this action.\nFor tbe reasons given, tbe judgment of tbe court below is\nAffirmed.", "type": "majority", "author": "ClaricsoN, J." } ], "attorneys": [ "Attorney-General McMullan and Assistant Attorneys-General Bruton and Patton for the State.", "Herbert McGlammy for defendant." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "STATE v. OSCAR EDWARD PARKER.\n(Filed 26 November, 1941.)\n1. Criminal Law \u00a7 17\u2014\nA plea of nolo contender\u00e1 is equivalent to a plea of guilty in so far as it gives the court the power to punish, and the court may impose sentence thereon as upon a plea of guilty.\n2. Larceny \u00a7 10\u2014\nA sentence of defendant to be confined in the common jail of the county for a period of 12 months, and assigned to work the public roads, upon defendant\u2019s plea of nolo contendere to a charge of stealing an automobile of the value of $325.00, is not excessive. C. S., 4249, 4251.\n3. Automobiles \u00a7 29\u2014\nA sentence of defendant to be confined in the county jail for a term of six months, to be assigned to work on the public roads, upon defendant\u2019s plea of nolo contendere to a warrant charging him with the operation of an automobile upon the public highways while under the influence of intoxicating liquor, is not excessive. C. \u00a13., 2621 (286) (325), 4506.\n4. Constitutional Law \u00a7 32\u2014\nWhere a statute fixes no maximum period of imprisonment as punishment for its violation, a sentence of imprisonment for less than two years cannot be held cruel and unreasonable.\n5. Criminal Law \u00a7 70\u2014\nThe question of the amount to be fixed for bond pending appeal is largely in the discretion of the court below. C. S., 4653.\nAppeal by defendant from Parker, J., at June Criminal Term, 1941, of New HaNover.\nAffirmed.\nThere is a statement of case on appeal, which it is not necessary to set forth in full. We quote in part: \u201cThe defendant was indicted under a warrant issued on the 4th day of April, 1941, for the violation of the law, by operating a motor vehicle, to wit, an automobile truck, upon the public highways in North Carolina under the influence of intoxicating liquor or narcotic drugs, and by carrying a concealed weapon upon his person while off his premises, a deadly weapon, to wit, a pistol, and was found guilty before the Eecorder and appealed from the judgment rendered, to the Superior Court, having been sentenced thirty days in jail, to be assigned to the roads by the Eecorder, and in addition thereto, at the same term of the Court, to wit, the May Term of the Superior Court, the defendant was indicted under a bill of indictment, found by the Grand Jury at said May Term of Court, held in the County of New Hanover, at the May Term, 1941, for the larceny of a Chevrolet automobile truck, of the value of $325.00.\u201d\nThe judgment sets forth the facts, as follows: (#1672) \u201cThe defendant, Oscar Edward Parker, entered a plea of nolo contendere, which plea the State accepts, of larceny of an automobile. In June, 1936, the defendant pleaded guilty to the larceny of an automobile, and by this Judge who is now presiding was given a sentence of 12 months on the roads, suspended for two years. In May, 1938, he was convicted of the reckless driving of an automobile, and fined and ordered to make restitution. In August, 1939, he was convicted of disorderly conduct and resisting an officer, and given 30 days on the County Farm, by the Eeeorder\u2019s Court. He appealed, and at the May Term, 1940, in the Superior Court, on this charge, he was fined $10.00 and costs; since the case in this Court he has been arrested for a violation of the criminal law in Brunswick County. The Judgment of the Court is that the defendant be confined in the common jail of New Hanover for a period of twelve months, and assigned to work the public roads, under the direction of the State Highway and Public Works Commission. (#1671) The defendant, Oscar Edward Parker, entered a plea of nolo contendere to the operation of an automobile while intoxicated. The Judgment of the Court is that the defendant Oscar Edward Parker be confined in the common jail of New Hanover County for a term of six months, and be assigned to work the public roads under the direction of the State Highway and Public Works Commission. It is ordered that this road sentence begin at the expiration of the road sentence imposed in case #1672.\u201d\nDefendant excepted, assigned errors, as set forth below, and appealed to the Supreme Court.\nAttorney-General McMullan and Assistant Attorneys-General Bruton and Patton for the State.\nHerbert McGlammy for defendant." }, "file_name": "0416-01", "first_page_order": 460, "last_page_order": 464 }