Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

State v. Hanner

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

Decided January 15, 2008No. COA07-757Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partTyson, Judge

The majority’s opinion holds the trial court: (1) properly activated defendant’s suspended sentences and changed the sentences to run consecutively, instead of concurrently as originally imposed, and (2) erred when it entered a substantially different written judgment outside of defendant’s presence. I concur to vacate and remand on entering the substantially different judgment outside of defendant’s presence. I disagree with the majority’s holding to affirm the consecutive sentences. I vote to reverse and respectfully dissent.

I. Probation Revocation

The majority opinion fails to include all…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Albernaz v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1981
  2. Calloway v. Ford Motor CompanySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1972
  3. State v. BoykinCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1985
  4. State v. WoolridgeSupreme Court of North Carolina · 2003
  5. State v. PaigeCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1988

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API