Legal Opinion

State v. Martin

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

Decided June 13, 1973No. 7326SC222PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

MORRIS, Judge.

In their first assignment of error defendants contend that the trial court sentenced them in such a fashion as to constitute “cruel and unusual punishment,” prohibited by the Constitu*400tions of North Carolina and the United States. They argue that because the sentences run consecutively, it will be more difficult for defendants to obtain parole. They further contend that because these sentences vary from one to five years to eight to ten years for like offenses, the punishment was not meted out in consideration of the crime committed. We find defendants’ argument without merit.

The…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Boykin v. AlabamaSupreme Court of the United States · 1969
  2. Santobello v. New YorkSupreme Court of the United States · 1971
  3. State v. JonesSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1971
  4. State v. DawsonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1966
  5. State v. CleavesCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1969

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. State v. ByrdCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1978
  2. State v. IngramCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1973
  3. State v. MartinSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1973
  4. State v. MartinCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1974
  5. State v. MartinCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1973

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API