{
  "id": 4687830,
  "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. JAMES ROBERT (DICK) SOUTHERN",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Southern",
  "decision_date": "1985-07-03",
  "docket_number": "No. 24PA85",
  "first_page": "110",
  "last_page": "111",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "314 N.C. 110"
    }
  ],
  "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": "322 S.E. 2d 617",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1984,
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "71 N.C. App. 563",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8525914
      ],
      "year": 1984,
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/71/0563-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 127,
    "char_count": 1430,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.79,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.57884760015592e-07,
      "percentile": 0.6800143560493295
    },
    "sha256": "1013913cdca5893fbc132cd143095e5e0716588f3a6b15712eefc6f04df99fb3",
    "simhash": "1:45ebcab0600fcd58",
    "word_count": 229
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:20:08.801916+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. JAMES ROBERT (DICK) SOUTHERN"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "PER CURIAM.\nThe only question before us is whether the Court of Appeals was correct in determining that the trial court erred at sentencing by concluding that certain convictions in which prayer for judgment was continued and no fines or other conditions imposed constituted \u201cprior convictions\u201d under the Fair Sentencing Act, particularly N.C.G.S. \u00a7 15A-1340.4(a)(l)(o) and -1340.2(4). Believing that the Court of Appeals was correct, we conclude that its decision should be\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "PER CURIAM."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Lacy H. Thornburg, Attorney General, by Michael Smith, Associate Attorney, for the state appellant.",
      "George B. Daniel and Ronald M. Price, by Ronald M. Price, for defendant appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. JAMES ROBERT (DICK) SOUTHERN\nNo. 24PA85\n(Filed 3 July 1985)\nCriminal Law \u00a7 138\u2014 prayer for judgment continued \u2014 no prior conviction for sentencing purposes\nThe trial court erred at sentencing by concluding that certain convictions in which prayer for judgment was continued and no fines or other conditions imposed constituted \u201cprior convictions\u201d under the Fair Sentencing Act. G.S. 15A-1340.4(a)(l)(o) and G.S. 15A-1340.2(4).\nON the state\u2019s petition for discretionary review of a decision of the Court of Appeals, 71 N.C. App. 563, 322 S.E. 2d 617 (1984), finding no error in defendant\u2019s trial at the 10 January 1984 Session of Caswell County Superior Court, Judge Beaty presiding, but remanding the case for a new sentencing hearing.\nLacy H. Thornburg, Attorney General, by Michael Smith, Associate Attorney, for the state appellant.\nGeorge B. Daniel and Ronald M. Price, by Ronald M. Price, for defendant appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0110-01",
  "first_page_order": 154,
  "last_page_order": 155
}