{
  "id": 2393923,
  "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. JOHN FITZGERALD STINSON",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Stinson",
  "decision_date": "1984-04-30",
  "docket_number": "No. 25A84",
  "first_page": "737",
  "last_page": "739",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "310 N.C. 737"
    }
  ],
  "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": "309 S.E. 2d 528",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1983,
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "65 N.C. App. 570",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8525134
      ],
      "year": 1983,
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/65/0570-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "300 S.E. 2d 689",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1983,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "307 N.C. 584",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8565300
      ],
      "year": 1983,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/307/0584-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "301 S.E. 2d 71",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1983,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "308 N.C. 169",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        4710824
      ],
      "year": 1983,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/308/0169-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "309 S.E. 2d 283",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1983,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "65 N.C. App. 223",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8523198
      ],
      "year": 1983,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/65/0223-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 217,
    "char_count": 4026,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.774,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.08054600866691455
    },
    "sha256": "9babb5586cdb5a1b705a69e4a6c65d85251daa5289ed4b1769f9739d35e40eec",
    "simhash": "1:0a044abd24054c04",
    "word_count": 662
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:57:26.657763+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. JOHN FITZGERALD STINSON"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "PER CURIAM.\nThe Court of Appeals correct ly determined the issues brought forward in defendant\u2019s brief. This case is distinguishable from State v. Isom, 65 N.C. App. 223, 309 S.E. 2d 283 (1983), relied on by Judge Becton in his dissenting opinion. In Isom the Court of Appeals concluded that it was improper for the trial judge to find as aggravating circumstances both that a defendant had a prior conviction punishable by more than sixty days\u2019 confinement and that he had served a prior prison term for that conviction. In the instant case the period during which defendant\u2019s sentence for a prior felony conviction was suspended had not yet expired at the time he committed the offense for which he was being tried. It was proper, therefore, for the trial court to consider both the fact of his prior conviction and the fact that the period for which the sentence was suspended had not yet expired as aggravating circumstances.\nWe find, however, error which, although not assigned by defendant, does appear on the face of the judgment in both the burglary and the attempted rape cases. In both cases the trial court found as aggravating circumstances: \u201cThe sentence pronounced by the court is necessary to deter others from the commission of a similar offense\u201d and \u201ca lesser sentence than that pronounced by the court would unduly depreciate the seriousness of the defendant\u2019s crime.\u201d It was error for the trial court to find these aggravating circumstances. State v. Chatman, 308 N.C. 169, 301 S.E. 2d 71 (1983).\nFor this error the judgments imposed against defendant in both the burglary and the attempted rape cases must be vacated and the matter remanded for a new sentencing hearing. State v. Ahearn, 307 N.C. 584, 300 S.E. 2d 689 (1983).\nInsofar as the Court of Appeals found no error in defendant\u2019s trial and no error on the points it discussed with regard to defendant\u2019s sentences, the decision is affirmed. For the reasons stated herein, however, the Court of Appeals\u2019 decision finding no error in the sentencing proceeding is reversed; the sentences imposed upon defendant are vacated; and the case is remanded to the Court of Appeals for further remand by it to Cabarrus County Superior Court for resentencing. The result is that the Court of Appeals\u2019 decision is affirmed in part and reversed in part, and the case remanded for resentencing.\nAffirmed in part;\nReversed in part; and\nRemanded for resentencing.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "PER CURIAM."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Rufus L. Edmisten, Attorney General, by Thomas H. Davis, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, for the State.",
      "Robert M. Critz and David H. Black for defendant appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. JOHN FITZGERALD STINSON\nNo. 25A84\n(Filed 30 April 1984)\n1. Criminal Law \u00a7 138\u2014 aggravating circumstances that defendant had a prior conviction punishable by more than 60 days and that defendant had served a prison term for that conviction properly considered\nThere was no error in a trial judge finding as aggravating circumstances both that defendant had a prior conviction punishable by more than 60 days\u2019 confinement and that the period of time for which the sentence for that conviction was suspended had not yet expired.\n2. Criminal Law \u00a7 138\u2014 aggravating circumstances that sentence necessary to deter others and lesser sentence would unduly depreciate seriousness of defendant\u2019s crime improperly considered\nThe trial court erred in finding as aggravating circumstances that: \u201cThe sentence pronounced by the court is necessary to deter others from the commission of a similar offense\u201d and \u201ca lesser sentence than that pronounced by the court would unduly depreciate the seriousness of the defendant\u2019s crime.\u201d\nAPPEAL by defendant from a decision of the Court of Appeals finding no error in either the trial or sentencing proceedings conducted before Judge Albright, presiding at the 4 October 1982 Criminal Session of CABARRUS County Superior Court. The opinion of the Court of Appeals is by Judge Arnold with Judge Hedrick concurring and Judge Becton dissenting. 65 N.C. App. 570, 309 S.E. 2d 528 (1983).\nRufus L. Edmisten, Attorney General, by Thomas H. Davis, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, for the State.\nRobert M. Critz and David H. Black for defendant appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0737-01",
  "first_page_order": 773,
  "last_page_order": 775
}