Title: State v. Williams

State: north-carolina

Issuer: North Carolina Supreme Court

Document:

230 S.E.2d 515 (1976) 291 N.C. 442 STATE of North Carolina v. Lewis WILLIAMS. No. 65. Supreme Court of North Carolina. December 21, 1976. *516 Atty. Gen. Rufus L. Edmisten, by Associate Atty. Henry H. Burgwyn, Raleigh, for the State. Don H. Bumgardner, Gastonia, for defendant. BRANCH, Justice. Defendant contends that he was entitled to a continuance as a matter of right when the trial judge rejected his negotiated plea on the ground that the punishment therein provided was too little in view of the pending offenses. G.S. 15A-1023, in pertinent part, provides: The official commentary at this point contains the following language: G.S. 15A-1024 provides: When the district attorney and defense counsel presented their proposed plea arrangement to the trial judge, he rejected it and stated his reasons therefor. Although the record does not affirmatively show that the trial judge "advised the defendant personally that neither the State nor the defendant is bound by the rejected arrangement," his action in permitting defendant to withdraw his plea was equivalent to the giving of such advice. Defendant does not contend that he was not afforded an opportunity to modify the plea arrangement or that he needed additional time to prepare for trial. His position is that G.S. 15A-1023 and G.S. 15A-1024 must be construed together so as to entitle him to a continuance as a matter of right. It is a cardinal rule of statutory construction that the intent of the legislature controls the interpretation of statutes. Highway Commission v. Hemphill, 269 N.C. 535, 153 S.E.2d 22; Lockwood v. McCaskill, 261 N.C. 754, 136 S.E.2d 67. It is also well settled that statutes dealing with the same subject matter must be construed in pari materia and harmonized to give effect to each other. Utilities Commission v. Electric Membership Corp., 275 N.C. 250, 166 S.E.2d 663; Gravel Co. v. Taylor, 269 N.C. 617, 153 S.E.2d 19. Yet, when the language of a statute is clear and unambiguous there is no room for judicial construction and the court must give the statute its plain and definite meaning without superimposing provisions or limitations not contained within the statute. State v. Camp, 286 N.C. 148, 209 S.E.2d 754; Board of Architecture v. Lee, 264 N.C. 602, 142 S.E.2d 643. § 350.5(4) of the A.L.I. Model Code of Pre-Arraignment Procedure is nearly identical to our G.S. 15A-1023(b). In Part IIICommentary of the Model Code, at page 624, we find the following comment: § 350.6 of the Model Code is the counterpart of our G.S. 15A-1024 except for the striking difference that it does not contain the following language: "Upon withdrawal, the defendant is entitled to a continuance until the next session of court." Although we are not bound by these commentaries, we have no quarrel with the conclusions therein contained. The legislature might well have enacted a statute providing for a continuance as a matter of right when the trial judge rejects a plea arrangement at any stage of the proceedings. This the legislature did not do. Instead the legislature enacted two separate and distinct statutes on the same day. The unambiguous language of G.S. 15A-1023(b) makes it clear that its provisions are activated when the trial judge rejects a negotiated plea arrangement before actual arraignment of defendant and before the introduction of evidence. This statute does not provide for a continuance as a matter of right. The equally unambiguous language of 15A-1024 discloses that this statute applies in cases in which the trial judge does not reject a plea arrangement when it is presented to him but hears the evidence and at the time for sentencing determines that *518 a sentence different from that provided for in the plea arrangement must be imposed. Under the express provisions of this statute a defendant is entitled to withdraw his plea and as a matter of right have his case continued until the next term. There is no conflict in the language of the statutes requiring that they be harmonized or construed. Rather, it clearly appears that the legislature intended that these separate statutes be independent and apply to entirely different, carefully delineated factual situations. Under these circumstances, it is not within our power to interpolate the right to a continuance into the provisions of G.S. 15A-1023(b). The provisions of G.S. 15A-1023(b) govern the factual situation presented by this appeal and, therefore, the defendant was not entitled to a continuance as a matter of right. Having so decided, we also hold that there has been no showing of abuse in the trial judge's discretionary ruling on defendant's motion to continue. State v. Blackmon, 280 N.C. 42, 185 S.E.2d 123; State v. Baldwin, 276 N.C. 690, 174 S.E.2d 526. Finally, we find no merit in defendant's argument that the trial judge erred by denying his motion for judgment as of nonsuit. Defendant takes the position that since the witness Lawrence knew that defendant endorsed the wrong name on the check there was no evidence of fraud. An intent to defraud is an essential element of forgery. However, it is not essential that any person be actually defrauded or that any act be done other than the fraudulent making or altering of the instrument. State v. Hall, 108 N.C. 776, 13 S.E. 189. Here the State's evidence to the effect that defendant, without the payee's authorization or consent, endorsed the payee's name to the check and negotiated the check was sufficient to repel defendant's motion for judgment as of nonsuit. See State v. Coleman, 253 N.C. 799, 117 S.E.2d 742. The decision of the Court of Appeals is Reversed.