Legal Opinion

State v. Mead

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

Decided July 3, 2007No. COA06-1116Published

1Opinion of the Court

646 S.E.2d 597 (2007)

STATE of North Carolina

v.

James Allen MEAD.

No. COA06-1116.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

July 3, 2007.

Attorney General Roy Cooper, by Assistant Attorney General Philip A. Lehman, for the State.

Cheshire, Parker, Schneider, Bryan & Vitale, by John Keating Wiles, Raleigh, for defendant-appellant.

WYNN, Judge.

To disturb a sentence imposed by a trial court, a defendant must show an "abuse of discretion, procedural conduct prejudicial to defendant, circumstances which manifest inherent unfairness and injustice, or conduct which offends the public sense of fair play."[1] Here,…

Also in this document: Concurring in part, dissenting in part.

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. Berman v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1937
  2. State v. CummingsSupreme Court of North Carolina · 2000
  3. State v. PopeSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1962
  4. State v. AtkinsSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1998
  5. State v. SmithSupreme Court of North Carolina · 2000

7 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