{
  "id": 8560667,
  "name": "STATE v. D. H. SOSSAMON, JR.",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Sossamon",
  "decision_date": "1963-05-01",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "378",
  "last_page": "379",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "259 N.C. 378"
    }
  ],
  "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": "122 S.E. 2d 711",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "255 N.C. 732",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8572868
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/255/0732-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 196,
    "char_count": 2607,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.523,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 7.063884962999275e-08,
      "percentile": 0.4256753965192565
    },
    "sha256": "f8492a12af2c41b5846939b34353a6bcf2a663e2cd74589d9fb7dce1e9097a54",
    "simhash": "1:cabcbff837278689",
    "word_count": 441
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:55:17.750134+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "STATE v. D. H. SOSSAMON, JR."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Per Curiam.\nFor reasons stated in S. v. Sossamon, ante, 374, the warrant on which the judgment of Miarch 31, 1960, is based is fatally defective and therefore insufficient to confer jurisdiction in that it does not allege an essential element of the offense defined in G.S. 20-28(a). See S. v. Jernigan, 255 N.C. 732, 122 S.E. 2d 711. Hence, defendant\u2019s motion in arrest of judgment should have been and now is allowed.\nJudgment arrested.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Per Curiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney General Bruton and Assistant Attorney General Barham for the State.",
      "T. O. Stennett and Harry E. Faggart, Jr., for defendant appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE v. D. H. SOSSAMON, JR.\n(Filed 1 May 1963.)\nCriminal Law \u00a7 136\u2014\nJudgment activating a suspended sentence for condition broken may not be based upon a conviction on a fatally defective warrant.\nAppeal by defendant from Johnston, J\u201e, October 8, 1962, Regular Criminal Term of Cababkus.\nThis is a companion case to S. v. Sossamon, ante, 374, and is the case referred to therein as Case No. 8378 on the Criminal Issue Docket of Cabarrus Superior Court.\nOn February 29, 1960, defendant was tried 'in the Recorder\u2019s Court of Cabarrus County on a warrant 'Charging that, on February 5, 1960, defendant \u201cdid unlawfully, willfully and feloniously Operate a motor vehicle upon the public highways of N. C., after his license had been revoked or suspended by the Dept, of Motor Vehicles in violation of G.S. 20-28 of the motor vehicle laws of N. C.,\u201d contrary to the form of the statute, etc. Defendant was found guilty and prayer for judgment was continued. On March 31, 1960, judgment imposing a prison sentence of eight months was pronounced. This sentence was suspended on the condition, inter alia, that \u201che (defendant) not own or operate a motor vehicle upon the public highways of the State of North Carolina for the next two years.\u201d\nThereafter, the said recorder\u2019s court entered judgment which, upon defendant\u2019s appeal, was affirmed 'by judgment of the superior court, activating the prison sentence of eight months imposed by the judgment of March 31, 1960.\nThe sentence in this case (Case No. 8378) was activated on the ground defendant had been convicted in Case No. 8377 of operating a motor vehicle on the public highways on March 26, 1961, as set forth in S. v. Sossamon, ante, 374, and thereby had violated the quoted condition of suspension.\nIn the superior court, defendant made a motion that the judgment of March 31, 1960, be arrested and excepted to the court\u2019s denial thereof. Defendant excepted to and appealed from the judgment activating the (suspended) sentence imposed by the judgment of March 31, 1960.\nAttorney General Bruton and Assistant Attorney General Barham for the State.\nT. O. Stennett and Harry E. Faggart, Jr., for defendant appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0378-01",
  "first_page_order": 422,
  "last_page_order": 423
}