{
  "id": 8558920,
  "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. BILLY RAY MOSES",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Moses",
  "decision_date": "1973-05-09",
  "docket_number": "No. 73",
  "first_page": "390",
  "last_page": "391",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "283 N.C. 390"
    }
  ],
  "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": 179,
    "char_count": 2485,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.503,
    "sha256": "91a65c3e09ee60f2c3d9033f97142feb055796132b549e03dc5ef27933725459",
    "simhash": "1:17a927758caa9a03",
    "word_count": 384
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:42:12.699050+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. BILLY RAY MOSES"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Per Curiam.\nDefendant\u2019s sworn statements fully support the court\u2019s adjudication that defendant\u2019s plea of guilty was freely, understandingly and voluntarily made. Indeed, defendant\u2019s answers include his sworn statement that he was in fact guilty of the criminal offense charged in the warrant.\nOn appeal, defendant contends that a new trial should be granted on the ground the warrant fails to charge a criminal offense. Obviously, there is no merit in this contention.\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Per Curiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney General Robert Morgan and Assistant Attorney General Robert G. Webb for the State.",
      "John H. McMurray for defendant appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. BILLY RAY MOSES\nNo. 73\n(Filed 9 May 1973)\nCriminal Law \u00a7 23 \u2014 voluntariness of guilty plea\nThe defendant\u2019s sworn statements fully supported the trial court\u2019s adjudication that defendant\u2019s plea of guilty was freely, understandingly and voluntarily made.\nAppeal by defendant from Wood, S. J., 23 October 1972 Session of Burke Superior Court, transferred for initial appellate review by the Supreme Court by order dated 26 March 1973 entered pursuant to G.S. 7A-31 (b) (4).\nThis criminal prosecution is based on a warrant which charges that defendant on or about 11 February 1972 unlawfully and wilfully possessed taxpaid liquor for the purpose of sale in violation of G.S. 18A-7.\nIn the District Court, after trial on his plea of not guilty, defendant was found guilty. Judgment was pronounced. Defendant appealed.\nIn the superior court, \u201c[d]efendant, by and through his attorney of record, John H. McMurray, and individually, entered a plea of guilty.\u201d\nBefore accepting defendant\u2019s plea, the presiding judge examined defendant in open court to determine whether defendant had entered the plea voluntarily with full understanding of his rights and the consequences of his plea. Based upon defendant\u2019s sworn statements, orally and in writing, the court adjudged \u201cthat, the plea of guilty by the defendant [was] freely, understandingly and voluntarily made, without undue influence, compulsion or duress, and without promise of leniency,\u201d and ordered that defendant\u2019s plea and the court\u2019s adjudication be entered in the record. Thereupon, based on defendant\u2019s plea of guilty, the court pronounced judgment.\nThree days after judgment had been pronounced, defendant, by informal letter to the clerk of the superior court, gave notice of appeal. Upon a finding that defendant was an indigent, the court appointed counsel to perfect defendant\u2019s appeal.\nAttorney General Robert Morgan and Assistant Attorney General Robert G. Webb for the State.\nJohn H. McMurray for defendant appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0390-01",
  "first_page_order": 418,
  "last_page_order": 419
}