State v. Martin

BALEY, Judge.

Defendant makes three contentions: (1) that the bill of indictment is defective because it fails to specify how the safe was forced open, (2) that the punishment imposed was excessive, (3) that the judgment of the court was not in accord with a plea bargain made with the solicitor which provided that defendant receive a sentence of only 10 to 15 years. We find all of these contentions to be without merit.

The indictment clearly states that the safe was opened “by the use of chopping tools.” It follows the language of the safecracking statute, G.S. 14-89.1, and is entirely proper.…