Case ID: nc_272/html/0146-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PeR Cueiam.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. ARTHUR FAISON.
    (Filed 29 November, 1967.)
    Criminal Law § 13S—
    A sentence of imprisonment which is within the limitation authorized by statute will not be disturbed on appeal.
    Appeal by defendant from Clark, S.J., 13 February 1967 Regular Conflict Criminal Session of CumbeRLAND Superior Court.
    The defendant was charged in a well-drawn bill of indictment with a third-offense escape. The Court appointed counsel to represent him, and a plea of not guilty was entered.
    The evidence for the State tended to show that the defendant was serving prison sentences for non-burglarious breaking and two previous escapes. On 9 November 1966 he was working with other prisoners near Falcon. His maintenance foreman testified that about 1:00 p.m. he gave the defendant permission to go to the woods “to get out to himself”, that defendant failed to return and an escape notice was put out. Bloodhounds were put on his trail, and he was •captured that night.
    The defendant offered no evidence, waived oral argument and was found guilty as charged.
    'From a sentence of eighteen (18) months’ imprisonment, he appealed.
    
      
      N. H. Person, Attorney for defendant appellant.
    
    
      T. W. Bruton, Attorney General, and James F. Bullock, Deputy Attorney General, for the State.
    
   PeR Cueiam.

The hope of escape has little merit. In these days of fast communication and transportation, less than one out of ten attempted escapes are successful — and the penalty for failure is severe, as this case demonstrates. The defendant has lost eighteen months out of his life for a few hours of frightened and terrified “freedom.”

The defendant in his brief says: “The only exception brought forward is the defendant’s assertion that it was error for the Court to have imposed a sentence of eighteen months’ imprisonment upon him for the crime of escape, third offense.”

Under the charge a sentence of three years could have been imposed. G.S. 148-45(a). He got just half that. A sentence within the statutory limits will not be disturbed. State v. Robinson, 271 N.C. 448, 156 S.E. 2d 854.

No error.