State v. Barrett

State v. William Barrett

State v. Barrett, 91 S.E.2d 917 (N.C. 1956)

Court: Supreme Court of North Carolina · State Highest Courts
Decided: March 21, 1956
Docket: No. 73
Judges: Per Curiam
Citations: 91 S.E.2d 917243 N.C. 6861956 N.C. LEXIS 605

Cited by 7

Opinion — Per Curiam

Per Cubiam.

The violation of the, ordinance of the City of Green-ville is a violation of a penal law of the State of North Carolina, because G.S. 14-4 provides that “if any person shall violate an ordinance of a city or town, he shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.”

Board of Education v. Henderson, 126 N.C. 689 , 36 S.E. 158 ;

S. v. Taylor, 133 N.C. 755 , 46 S.E.

5; S.v. Wilkes, 233 N.C. 645 , 65 S.E. 2d 129 .

The validity of Judge Bundy’s judgment suspending execution of the sentence of imprisonment on certain conditions is not challenged on appeal.

S. v. Johnson, 226 N.C. 266 , 37 S.E. 2d 678 ;

S. v. Miller, 225 N.C. 213 , 34 S.E. 2d 143 .

Whether the defendant had wilfully violated the conditions upon which the sentence of imprisonment was suspended presents questions of fact for the judge, and not issues of fact for a jury.

S. v. Johnson, 169 N.C. 311 , 84 S.E. 767 ;

S. v. Hardin, 183 N.C. 815 , 112 S.E. 593 ;

S. v. Millner, 240 N.C. 602 , 83 S.E. 2d 546 .

A reading of the record shows that there was sufficient competent evidence before Judge Bundy to support his findings of fact that the defendant during the period of probation had wilfully violated a penal law of this State, and had wilfully failed to avoid persons or places of disreputable or harmful character, both conditions to be observed by the defendant to avoid serving the sentence of imprisonment. Such findings are sufficient to support the Judge’s order revoking probation, and activating the sentence of imprisonment. That being true, it is immaterial whether there is sufficient competent evidence to support the finding that the defendant had failed to work faithfully at suitable employment, as far as possible.

Affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 7 cases

View all citing references →

Relies on it most ⓘ

Cauble v. City of Asheville271 S.E.2d 258 (N.C. 1980)
State v. Robinson103 S.E.2d 376 (N.C. 1958)
State v. Boggs192 S.E.2d 29 (N.C. Ct. App. 1972)
Eastern Carolina Tastee-Freez, Inc. v. City of Raleigh123 S.E.2d 632 (N.C. 1962)
State v. Thompson93 S.E.2d 158 (N.C. 1956)
Frosty Ice Cream, Inc. v. Hord138 S.E.2d 816 (N.C. 1964)

Most recent

Cauble v. City of Asheville271 S.E.2d 258 (N.C. 1980)
State v. Clark223 S.E.2d 843 (N.C. Ct. App. 1976)
State v. Boggs192 S.E.2d 29 (N.C. Ct. App. 1972)
Frosty Ice Cream, Inc. v. Hord138 S.E.2d 816 (N.C. 1964)
Eastern Carolina Tastee-Freez, Inc. v. City of Raleigh123 S.E.2d 632 (N.C. 1962)
State v. Robinson103 S.E.2d 376 (N.C. 1958)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 9

Depth	Case	Cited by
	State v. Miller, 34 S.E.2d 143 (N.C. 1945)	43
	Bd. of Educ. v. Town of Henderson, 36 S.E. 158 (N.C. 1900)	21
	State v. Taylor., 46 S.E. 5 (N.C. 1903)	17
	State v. Millner, 83 S.E.2d 546 (N.C. 1954)	16
	State v. Johnson, 37 S.E.2d 678 (N.C. 1946)	12
	State v. Johnson, 84 S.E. 767 (N.C. 1915)	9
	State v. Wilkes, 65 S.E.2d 129 (N.C. 1951)	7
	State v. Hardin, 183 N.C. 815 (1922)	33
	State v. Hardin, 112 S.E. 593 (N.C. 1922)	25

`/`	Focus the search box
`j` `k`	Next / previous result
`Enter`	Open the selected result
`x`	Add / remove the selected result from the download list
`n` `p`	Next / previous search term in a case
`c`	Copy the citation of the current case
`+` `−`	Larger / smaller reading text
`?`	Show this list