Legal Opinion
State v. Setzer
Court of Appeals of North Carolina
Decided April 4, 1978No. 7725SC832PublishedCited by 7 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MARTIN, Judge.
Defendant contends that the condition he is accused of violating is invalid because it is unreasonable and is imposed for an unreasonable length of time.
In support of this contention defendant first argues that the condition that defendant not loiter in or around the courthouse or any other public building unless on business is void in that it amounts to banishment. We disagree.
It is well settled law that “[i]n North Carolina a court has no power to pass a sentence of banishment; and if it does so, the sentence is void.” State v. Doughtie, 237 N.C. 368, 74 S.E. 2d 922 (1953);…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- State v. SmithSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1950
- State v. DoughtieSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1953
- State v. DavisSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1956
- State v. CulpCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1976
- State v. LangleyCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1968
3Cited by7 opinions
- In Re WhiteCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1979
- Jones v. StateCourt of Appeals of Alaska · 1986
- People v. PerezCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2009
- State v. ChurchillCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1983
- In Re WhiteCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1979
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.