{
  "id": 8631374,
  "name": "STATE v. PAUL SHEPHERD",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Shepherd",
  "decision_date": "1949-09-21",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "605",
  "last_page": "607",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "230 N.C. 605"
    }
  ],
  "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": "93 S.E. 473",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "174 N.C. 796",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        11255859
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/174/0796-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "17 S.E. 2d 475",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "220 N.C. 416",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        11303866
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/220/0416-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "39 S.E. 2d 607",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "226 N.C. 579",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8622774
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/226/0579-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "191 S.E. 353",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "211 N.C. 591",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8628228
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/211/0591-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "51 S.E. 2d 348",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "229 N.C. 662",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        12167610
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/229/0662-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "182 S.E. 715",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "209 N.C. 50",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        2221522
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/209/0050-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 278,
    "char_count": 3906,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.477,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 3.4043353178713314e-07,
      "percentile": 0.8776258770298964
    },
    "sha256": "161e099f113a4f93b05810f6309ac2a77962d84d982ddeb057222f93f860d173",
    "simhash": "1:604aaa46a526800b",
    "word_count": 671
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:28:13.210119+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "STATE v. PAUL SHEPHERD."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Stacy, C. J.\nThe question posed is the sufficiency of the record to support the judgment.\nIt must be conceded that some dubiety arises in respect of the intent, scope and purpose of the hearing before the trial court as the transcript is contradictory on the subject. The defendant contends that his plea of nolo contendere was a conditional one with the ultimate issue of his guilt or innocence to be determined by the court. He now concedes that such procedure was ill advised and should be held for naught. S. v. Camby, 209 N.C. 50, 182 S.E. 715. The court seems to have had a different understanding of the matter. However, in the absence of a request by the defendant to withdraw his plea of nolo contendere, we cannot say reversible error has been made to appear. He had ample opportunity in the trial court to interpose such request, if he there felt aggrieved by any misunderstanding or the turn of events.\nIt is true the language of the plea and the pronouncement of guilt at the conclusion of the evidence tend to support or at least to lend color to the defendant\u2019s view. These are overborne, we think, by the announcement that the court was rendering no verdict, but was pronouncing judgment on the defendant\u2019s plea of nolo contendere, which later statement appears without challenge or objection on the record. Thus, the case pivots on an interpretation of the record with something to be said on both sides and the defendant required to show error against a presumption of regularity. S. v. Creech, 229 N.C. 662, 51 S.E. 2d 348; Cole v. R. R., 211 N.C. 591, 191 S.E. 353.\nFor purposes of judgment and disposition, a plea of nolo contendere ias tbe same effect as a plea of guilty. S. v. Ayers, 226 N.C. 579, 39 S.E. 2d 607; S. v. Parker, 220 N.C. 416, 17 S.E. 2d 475; S. v. Burnett, 174 N.C. 796, 93 S.E. 473.\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Stacy, C. J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney-General McMullan, Assistant Attorney-General Rhodes, and Forrest H. Shuford, II, Member of Staff, for the State.",
      "P. W. Glidewell, Sr., and R. F. Sentelle for defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE v. PAUL SHEPHERD.\n(Filed 21 September, 1949.)\n1. Criminal Law \u00a7\u00a7 17c, 60b \u2014 Plea of nolo contendere supports sentence for the offense charged.\nThe record recited that defendant, through his counsel, \u201centers a plea of nolo contendere and permits the court to hear the evidence and find the facts.\u201d After hearing evidence the court announced that defendant was guilty of at least two charges on his own testimony, but later ^stated that the court had \u201crendered no verdict\u201d but was pronouncing judgment on the plea of nolo contendere. Held: The court is authorized to render judgment upon a plea of nolo contendere and if defendant had intended the plea to be conditional, with the ultimate issue of his guilt or innocence to be determined by the court, he had ample opportunity to request permission to withdraw his plea, and in the absence of such request the judgment is affirmed.\n2. Criminal Law \u00a7 81b\u2014\nThe burden is upon appellant to show error against the presumption of regularity.\nAppeal by defendant from Sink, J., at May Term, 1949, of Eocic-INGHAM.\nCriminal prosecution on indictments charging the defendant with (a) forgery and uttering and (b) embezzlement of public school funds.\nThe record contains the recital that the defendant, through his counsel,, \u201centers a plea of nolo contendere, and permits the court to hear the evidence and find the facts.\u201d\nThere was a hearing before the court, both sides offering evidence, at the conclusion of which the court announced that the defendant was \u201cguilty of at least two of the charges\u201d on his own testimony. The court later stated, however, that he had \u201crendered no verdict,\u201d but was pronouncing judgment on \u201cthe defendant\u2019s plea of nolo contendere\nJudgment: Imprisonment in the State\u2019s Prison for not less than one-nor more than two years on each charge, the judgments to run concurrently.\nThe defendant appeals, assigning errors.\nAttorney-General McMullan, Assistant Attorney-General Rhodes, and Forrest H. Shuford, II, Member of Staff, for the State.\nP. W. Glidewell, Sr., and R. F. Sentelle for defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0605-01",
  "first_page_order": 661,
  "last_page_order": 663
}
