Legal Opinion

State v. Brooks

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided September 27, 1967Published

1Per curiam

Defendant appeals because the two sentences,, which the court specified should run concurrently, do not specify the same place of confinement. He argues that “‘[a] sentence in the penitentiary and one adjudging that a man shall spend a certain time in the county jail cannot be served out concurrently.’ Story v. State, 27 S.W. 2d 204.” In re Smith, 235 N.C. 169, 172, 69 S.E. 2d 174, 176; accord, In re Bentley, 240 N.C. 112, 81 S.E. 2d 206. Defendant contends that this case should be remanded to the superior Court for “proper judgment” in order to effectuate the judge’s stated intention that…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. State v. SmithSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1952
  2. Story v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1930
  3. Ex Parte BentleySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1954

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

Powered by the Exa API