{
  "id": 8614325,
  "name": "STATE v. D. M. JAMIESON",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Jamieson",
  "decision_date": "1950-11-29",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "731",
  "last_page": "732",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "232 N.C. 731"
    }
  ],
  "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": "55 S.E. 2d 79",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "230 N.C. 605",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8631374
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/230/0605-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 165,
    "char_count": 2046,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.465,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 9.713794784138e-08,
      "percentile": 0.5301421048099716
    },
    "sha256": "b7f78516b5c06d9e300365f62ff5d29155310fbdc486fa3ebc2943afac3ff155",
    "simhash": "1:6e3d4879afa60c5e",
    "word_count": 344
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:42:59.145817+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "JOHNSON, J., took no part in the consideration or decision of this case."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "STATE v. D. M. JAMIESON."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Per Curiam.\nDefendant, having entered plea of nolo contendere to the charge against him, finds himself in like situation to that of defendant in S. v. Shepherd, 230 N.C. 605, 55 S.E. 2d 79. His plea, for purposes of judgment and disposition, has the same effect as a plea of guilty. Hence as in the Shepherd ease the judgment must be, and it is\nAffirmed.\nJOHNSON, J., took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Per Curiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney-General McMullan and Assistant Attorney-General Bruton for the State.",
      "Elbert E. Foster and J. F. Flowers for defendant, appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE v. D. M. JAMIESON.\n(Filed 29 November, 1950.)\nCriminal Law \u00a7\u00a7 17c, 60b\u2014\nA plea of nolo contendere bas the same effect as a plea of guilty and supports the imposition of judgment, and defendant may not complain of such judgment on the ground that the plea was entered in order that the judge should hear the evidence, find the facts, and render such verdict as the testimony indicated.\nJohnson, J., took no part in the consideration or decision of this ease.\nAppeal by defendant from Phillips, J., at May Term, 1950, of UnioN-\nCriminal prosecution upon warrant charging that defendant \u201cunlawfully and willfully, did possess, transport, sell, offer for sale, and place in Union County, for the purpose of being operated numerous illegal punch boards, contrary to the form of the statute in such case made and provided,\u201d etc.\nThe minute docket of Superior Court of Union County contains these entries : \u201cThe defendant D. M. Jamieson, through his counsel, tenders to the State a plea of nolo contendere to the charge\u201d described verbatim as in the warrant above, \u201cwhich plea is accepted by the State,\u201d and that thereupon the court entered judgment imposing sentence as specified.\nOn the other hand, the case on appeal states that the defendant entered a plea of nolo contendere and agreed that the judge should hear the evidence, find the facts, and render such verdict as the testimony indicated.\nFrom judgment pronounced defendant appeals to Supreme Court and assigns error.\nAttorney-General McMullan and Assistant Attorney-General Bruton for the State.\nElbert E. Foster and J. F. Flowers for defendant, appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0731-01",
  "first_page_order": 779,
  "last_page_order": 780
}