{
  "id": 8567188,
  "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. ROBERT MITCHELL EDWARDS",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Edwards",
  "decision_date": "1973-01-26",
  "docket_number": "No. 86",
  "first_page": "578",
  "last_page": "580",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "282 N.C. 578"
    }
  ],
  "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": "188 S.E. 2d 296",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1972,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "303"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "281 N.C. 198",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8574551
      ],
      "year": 1972,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "209"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/281/0198-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 286,
    "char_count": 4477,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.552,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.20641338549081434
    },
    "sha256": "c9db00301576aeec8e2c158e3d9b0308756da9102e86fdfb9bd2896910b9a155",
    "simhash": "1:9c2c44695a86b54d",
    "word_count": 732
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:08:27.476898+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. ROBERT MITCHELL EDWARDS"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Per Curiam.\nDefendant\u2019s only assignment of error is that \u201c[t]he trial court erred in sentencing defendant for a period of 30 years to life in that the evidence presented by the State and by the defendant did not warrant such cruel and unusual punishment.\u201d\nThe punishment for burglary in the second degree is \u201cimprisonment in the State\u2019s prison for life, or for a term of years, in the discretion of the court.\u201d G.S. 14-52. A sentence of imprisonment within the maximum authorized by statute is not cruel or unusual in a constitutional sense, unless the punishment provisions of the statute itself are unconstitutional. State v. Cradle, 281 N.C. 198, 209, 188 S.E. 2d 296, 303 (1972), and cases there cited.\nThe punishment for felonious escape (first offense) is \u201cimprisonment for not less than six months nor more than two years.\u201d G.S. 148-45. Defendant was an escapee when he committed the crime of burglary.\nThe burglary case is before this Court on direct appeal as a matter of right under G.S. 7A-27 (a) because the judgment pronounced includes the possibility of life imprisonment. The burglary case and the felonious escape case were heard in the superior court at the same time and a single judgment was pronounced. We allowed certiorari in the felonious escape case so that the appeal in both cases could be considered and decided at the same time by this Court.\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Per Curiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney General Robert Morgan and Associate Attorney Edwin M. Speas, Jr. for the State.",
      "Frank W. Winfree for defendant appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. ROBERT MITCHELL EDWARDS\nNo. 86\n(Filed 26 January 1973)\nBurglary and Unlawful Breakings \u00a7 8 \u2014 sentence for second degree burglary\u2014 cruel and unusual punishment\nA sentence of imprisonment for second degree burglary of not less than thirty years nor more than life is within the maximum provided by G.S. 14-62 and is therefore not cruel or unusual in a constitutional sense.\nAppeal by defendant from judgment entered by Collier, J at 7 August 1972 Session of Forsyth Superior Court.\nDefendant was indicted in separate bills which charged him with the commission of the crimes of burglary and of felonious escape.\nThe burglary indictment charged that defendant, \u201cabout the hour of twelve in the night time\u201d of 14 November 1971, \u201cunlawfully, feloniously and burglariously did break and enter a dwelling house of Wade A. Crews, located at Eoute #3, Kernersville, North Carolina, which dwelling house was then and there actually occupied by Wade A. Crews, Mary P. Crews, and Brian Crews, with the felonious intent to commit the crime of larceny in said dwelling house_\u201d\nThe felonious escape indictment charged in substance that defendant on 14 November 1971, while serving a sentence for felonious larceny and lawfully confined by the North Carolina Department of Correction, escaped from such lawful custody in that, after authorized to leave his place of confinement on temporary parole, defendant, in violation of his parole and of G.S. 148-45 (b), failed to return to his place of confinement as directed and ordered by the North Carolina Department of Correction.\nEepresented by court-appointed counsel, defendant, when arraigned on the burglary indictment, tendered a plea of guilty of burglary in the second degree; and, when arraigned on the felonious escape indictment, entered a plea of guilty as charged. Subject to approval by the court, these pleas were accepted by the State.\nPrior to final acceptance of the pleas, defendant in open court was fully advised as to his rights. In response to inquiries by the court, defendant stated that he understood his rights; that he was guilty of the crimes to which he had pleaded guilty; that he knew the maximum punishment for these crimes; and that his attorney had entered the pleas by his authority and with his assent.\nBased upon defendant\u2019s oral and written statements, the court found that defendant had entered the pleas voluntarily and understandingly, without undue influence, compulsion or duress, and without promise of leniency.\nThe State also offered evidence which tended to support all allegations in the indictments in respect of the crimes to which defendant had pleaded guilty.\nUpon defendant\u2019s pleas the court, having consolidated the two cases for judgment, pronounced judgment \u201cthat the defendant be imprisoned for the term of not less than thirty (30) years nor more than his natural life in the State\u2019s Prison. . . .\u201d\nDefendant excepted to the judgment and appealed.\nAttorney General Robert Morgan and Associate Attorney Edwin M. Speas, Jr. for the State.\nFrank W. Winfree for defendant appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0578-01",
  "first_page_order": 598,
  "last_page_order": 600
}