State v. Shoemaker
Supreme Court of North Carolina
1Opinion of the Court
Pee Cueiam.
The sentence imposed does not exceed the maximum prescribed by the applicable statute so as to constitute cruel and unusual punishment and be violative of defendant’s constitutional rights. State v. LePard, 270 N.C. 157, 153 S.E. 2d 875; G.S. 148-45. Neither is there merit in defendant’s contention that the sentence imposed by the trial court constituted double punishment or double jeopardy, in violation of his constitutional rights, in that he had already been punished under prison regulations by being denied certain privileges and by being subjected to segregated confinement.
The…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- State v. GarrisSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1965
- State v. LePardSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1967
- State v. WorleySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1966
3Cited by7 opinions
- State v. ProcterOhio Court of Appeals · 1977
- State v. TiseSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1971
- State v. StoneCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1984
- In re CobbCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1991
- Carolina v. MaddoxCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1975
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.