{
  "id": 8564920,
  "name": "STATE v. LUBY WORLEY",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Worley",
  "decision_date": "1966-12-14",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "687",
  "last_page": "690",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "268 N.C. 687"
    }
  ],
  "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": "100 S.E. 2d 497",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "247 N.C. 253",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8626501
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/247/0253-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "148 S.E. 2d 252",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "267 N.C. 405",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8559476
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/267/0405-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "113 S.E. 2d 577",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "252 N.C. 331",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8621583
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/252/0331-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "95 S.E. 2d 77",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "79"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "245 N.C. 42",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8602952
      ],
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "44"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/245/0042-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 323,
    "char_count": 7944,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.584,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.3503244502674704e-07,
      "percentile": 0.6333855757613668
    },
    "sha256": "6e475f6b3f72ed18fa15e958048717fe6705173b9da5cb7c7e888a6a8ce40530",
    "simhash": "1:3e6f93ae200e8c5e",
    "word_count": 1312
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:01:58.333486+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "STATE v. LUBY WORLEY."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Bobbitt, J.\nIn the record on appeal, defendant sets. forth two assignments of error: (1) \u201cThe action of the State and Court in refusing to accept defendant\u2019s plea to guilty of misdemeanor escape\u201d; and (2) \u201c(t)he action of the Court in entering and signing the judgment of record.\u201d\nIn a criminal prosecution, if the State elects to accept the defendant\u2019s plea of nolo contendere, the court\u2019s authority to pronounce judgment in that particular case is the same as if there had been conviction by verdict or plea of guilty. S. v. Stone, 245 N.C. 42, 44, 95 S.E. 2d 77, 79, and cases cited; S. v. Stevens, 252 N.C. 331, 113 S.E. 2d 577. Defendant having tendered, and the State having accepted, a plea of nolo contendere \u201cto the charge in the Bill of Indictment,\u201d the sole question is whether the. indictment charges a criminal offense punishable as provided in the judgment.\nThe State having refused to accept \u201ca plea of guilty to misdemeanor escape,\u201d we assume, for present purposes, that the court, in pronouncing judgment, considered the indictment charged a felony escape. Too, it is assumed the alleged prior conviction for escape \u201cat the December 9, 1965 session of the Recorder\u2019s Court of New Hanover County\u201d was for a misdemeanor escape.\nG.S. 148-45 in pertinent part provides: \u201c(a) Any prisoner serving a sentence imposed upon conviction of a misdemeanor who escapes or attempts to escape from the State prison system shall for-the first such offense be guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction thereof, shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than three months nor more than one year. Any prisoner serving a sentence imposed upon conviction of a felony who escapes or attempts to escape from the State prison system shall for the first such offense be guilty of a felony and, upon conviction thereof, shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than six months nor more than two years. Any prisoner convicted of escaping or attempting to escape from the State prison system who at any time subsequent to such conviction escapes or attempts to escape therefrom shall be guilty of a felony and, upon conviction thereof, shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than six months nor more than three years.\u201d (Our italics.)\nThe indictment charged: (1) Defendant's escape on December 13, 1965, was from lawful custody of the named superintendent of State Prison Camp No. 025; (2) defendant, when he escaped, was serving sentences imposed in misdemeanor cases at November 1965 Session of Wayne Superior Court and at December 1965 Session of Sampson Superior Court; and (3) defendant had theretofore been convicted of escape at the December 1965 Session of the Recorder\u2019s Court of New Hanover County.\nDefendant contends the words \u201ctemporary larceny\u201d and the words \u201cAiding and Abetting in (misdemeanor) larceny\u201d do not sufficiently define criminal offenses. The term \u201ctemporary larceny\u201d is inexact. An aider and abetter in the commission of misdemeanor larceny is guilty as a principal. Be that as it may, a description of the criminal offenses for which defendant was serving sentences was unnecessary. In S. v. Stallings, 267 N.C. 405, 148 S.E. 2d 252, it was held: (1) \u201cthat an indictment charging a defendant with escape from lawful custody while serving a sentence imposed by judgment pronounced in the superior court of a named county for a felony is sufficient without naming the particular felony for which defendant was imprisoned\u201d; (2) that the reference in the indictment to \u201cthe crime of robbery with force\u201d was surplusage; and (3) that the material averment was that defendant \u201cwas serving a sentence imposed by judgment pronounced in the Superior Court of Wake County for a felony.\u201d In the present case, the indictment alleges plainly that the defendant at the time of his escape on December 13, 1965, then in lawful custody, was serving sentences imposed by judgments pronounced in the superior courts of the named counties in misdemeanor cases.\nDefendant contends the third sentence in the portion of G.S. 148-45 quoted above, to wit, \u201c(a)ny prisoner convicted of escaping or attempting to escape from the State prison system who at any time subsequent to such conviction escapes or -attempts to escape therefrom shall be guilty of a felony and, upon conviction thereof, shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than six months nor more than three years,\u201d refers only to \u201ca second (subsequent) escape from a felony conviction.\u201d The contention is without merit. Each of the two preceding sentences classifies the crime and defines the punishment for the \u201cfirst such offense.\u201d The third sentence classifies the crime and defines the punishment for a subsequent offense of escape, irrespective of whether such prior escape occurred while defendant was serving a misdemeanor or a felony sentence.\nIt was stated in S. v. Jordan, 247 N.C. 253, 100 S.E. 2d 497, that \u201ca second escape is a felony, punishable by imprisonment for not less than six months nor more than three years, irrespective of whether the original sentence was imposed upon conviction of a misdemeanor or of a felony.\u201d Although unnecessary to decision in Jordan, the quoted statement is approved and adopted as a correct statement of the law applicable to the present case.\nConsideration has been given to all questions presented by defendant\u2019s assignments of error. No error appearing, the judgment of the court below is affirmed.\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Bobbitt, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney General Bruton and Staff Attorney Brown for the State.",
      "Sullivan & Horne for defendant appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE v. LUBY WORLEY.\n(Filed 14 December, 1966.)\n1. Criminal Law \u00a7 25\u2014\nDefendant\u2019s plea of nolo contendere, accepted by the court, authorizes the court to pronounce judgment in the particular case in the same manner as though there had been a conviction by verdict or plea of guilty.\n2. Escape \u00a7 1\u2014\nUnder G.S. 148-45, a second escape is a felony irrespective of whether the original sentence was imposed upon conviction of a misdemeanor or a felony, and it is not required that the indictment name the particular offense for which the defendant was imprisoned, and therefore an indictment charging a second escape after a first escape occurring while defendant was serving a lawful sentence for a misdemeanor, charges a felonious escape.\nAppeal by defendant from Carr, J., September 1966 Session of Brunswick.\nDefendant was indicted in a bill charging that on December 13, 1965, \u201cwhile he, the said Luby Worley, was then and there lawfully confined in the North Carolina State Prison System in the lawful custody of John R. Crouse, Superintendent, State Prison Camp No. 025, and while then and there serving sentences for the crime of temporary larceny, which is a misdemeanor under the laws of the State of North Carolina, imposed at the November 1965 Term of Criminal Superior Court in Wayne County, North Carolina, and also while serving a sentence for the crime of Aiding and Abetting in Larceny, which is a misdemeanor, and which was imposed at the December 1965 session of Criminal Superior Court in Sampson County, North Carolina, then and there unlawfully, willfully and feloniously did attempt to escape and did escape from the said North Carolina State Prison System, Prison Camp No. 025, this being his second offense of escape, he the said Luby Worley, having been heretofore convicted of escape at the December 9, 1965 session of Recorder\u2019s Court of New Hanover County,\u201d etc.\nDefendant tendered, but the State refused to accept, \u201ca plea of guilty to misdemeanor escape.\u201d Thereafter, defendant tendered, and the State accepted, \u201ca plea of nolo contendere to the charge in the Bill of Indictment.\u201d\nJudgment imposing a prison sentence of nine months was pronounced, this sentence \u201cto begin at the expiration of a sentence imposed in the Superior Court of Sampson County on December 2, 1965 in Case #5066 on a charge of aiding and abetting in larceny.\u201d\nDefendant excepted and appealed.\nAttorney General Bruton and Staff Attorney Brown for the State.\nSullivan & Horne for defendant appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0687-01",
  "first_page_order": 727,
  "last_page_order": 730
}