{
  "id": 8567627,
  "name": "STATE v. WILLIAM ANDERSON",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Anderson",
  "decision_date": "1962-06-15",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "336",
  "last_page": "337",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "257 N.C. 336"
    }
  ],
  "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": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 160,
    "char_count": 2061,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.603,
    "sha256": "1ac8d15fe07c97e5daa69ec9f6294ae9390f592df1da5befe174e5cdf6b6962f",
    "simhash": "1:71d61e4b324194e0",
    "word_count": 347
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:02:42.075591+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "STATE v. WILLIAM ANDERSON."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Pee Cukiam.\nThis is a companion appeal with State v. Poye, ante 326. Pleas were entered and sentences imposed at the same time as in the Poye case. Defendant herein and Pope made identical motions to vacate judgments, and rely on the same facts and legal principles to support the motions. Except for the indictments, sentences and the names of the defendants, the records and briefs in the two appeals are in all material respects the same.\nOn the authority of the opinion in the Poye case, the judgments entered by Judge Williams and the ruling and order of Judge Burgwyn are\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Pee Cukiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney General Bruton for the State.",
      "Dalton, Long & Latham for defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE v. WILLIAM ANDERSON.\n(Filed 15 June 1962.)\nAppeal by defendant from Williams, J., and Burgwyn, E.J., October 1961 Criminal Term of AlamaNCe.\nDefendant is charged in bills of indictment in cases Nos. 32, 78, 80, 109, 133 and 200, variously with the criminal offenses of larceny and felonious breaking and entering. There are six counts of larceny (two of them misdemeanors) and three counts of breaking and entering. The indictments in cases 32, 133 and 200 were returned by the grand juries of Guilford, Orange and Durham Counties respectively. These cases were removed to Alamance for trial. The other three cases were instituted in Alamance County.\nDefendant entered pleas of guilty in all the cases before Williams, J., who presided during the first week of the two-weeks term.\nJudge Williams imposed active prison sentences as follows: Case No. 32, 5 years; No. 78, 5 years, to begin at the expiration of the sentence in 32; in each of the cases, Nos. 80, 109, 133 and 200, not less than 3 nor more than 5 years.\nDefendant moved before Burgwyn, E.J., who presided during the second week of the term, to vacate the sentences imposed by Judge Williams on the grounds that they were irregularly entered and defendant\u2019s constitutional rights were violated by the sentencing procedure. The motion was overruled.\nDefendant appeals from the sentences imposed and from the ruling on the motion.\nAttorney General Bruton for the State.\nDalton, Long & Latham for defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0336-01",
  "first_page_order": 376,
  "last_page_order": 377
}