(DOWNLOAD) "North Carolina v. Noles" by Court of Appeals of North Carolina No. 7172SC622 # eBook PDF Kindle ePub Free
eBook details
- Title: North Carolina v. Noles
- Author : Court of Appeals of North Carolina No. 7172SC622
- Release Date : January 17, 1971
- Genre: Law,Books,Professional & Technical,
- Pages : * pages
- Size : 53 KB
Description
[12 NCApp Page 678] Defendant's first two assignments of error attack the validity of the warrant upon which he was originally tried and the
resulting judgment entered 13 July 1970 because there was no affirmative showing on the record that the defendant entered
a plea of guilty understandingly and voluntarily. The defendant cites State v. Harris, 10 N.C. App. 553, 180 S.E.2d 29 (1971),
as authority for his proposition, but the cases can be distinguished. Both cases involve appeals from an order activating
suspended sentences and in both the contention was that guilty pleas not in compliance with Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238,
23 L. Ed. 2d 274, 89 S. Ct. 1709 (1969), were entered. In Harris the defendant directly attacked the validity of the later
judgment which was the basis for the activation of his original suspended sentence. In the present case, however, the defendant
tries to attack collaterally the validity of the original judgment, where his sentence was suspended, in an appeal from the
revocation of that suspension. It is here that the similarity ends and the difference lies. When appealing from an order activating
a suspended sentence, inquiries are permissible only to determine whether there is evidence to support a finding of a breach
of the conditions of the suspension, or whether the condition which has been broken is invalid because it is unreasonable
or is imposed for an unreasonable length of time. State v. Caudle, 276 N.C. 550, 173 S.E.2d 778 (1970). Questioning the validity
of the original judgment where sentence was suspended on appeal from an order activating the sentence is, we believe, an impermissible
collateral attack. The proper procedure which provides the defendant adequate opportunity for adjudication of claimed deprivations
of constitutional rights is under the Post-Conviction Hearing Act. G.S. 15-217, et seq. See State v. White, 274 N.C. 220,
162 S.E.2d 473 (1968).