Case Name: STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. ROGER THOMPSON
Court: North Carolina Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: North Carolina
Decision Date: 1968-12-11
Citations: 3 N.C. App. 231
Docket Number: No. 6815SC456
Parties: STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. ROGER THOMPSON
Judges: Broce and Britt, JJ., concur.
Reporter: North Carolina Court of Appeals Reports
Volume: 3
Pages: 231–231

Head Matter:
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. ROGER THOMPSON
No. 6815SC456
(Filed 11 December 1968)
1. Criminal Law § 161— review of exceptions to judgment
An assignment of error to the signing of the judgment presents the face of the record proper for review.
2. Burglary and Unlawful Breakings § 8; Larceny § 10— sentences
Sentence of two1 years imprisonment imposed upon plea of guilty to non-felonious breaking and entering, and sentence of one year’s imprisonment imposed upon plea of guilty to non-felonious larceny, are within statutory limits. G.S. 14-3.
Appeal by defendant from Hall, J., August 1968 Criminal Session AlamaNCE Superior Court.
Defendant was charged on two counts in a single bill of indictment, proper in form, first, with felonious breaking and entering, and second, with larceny. At the trial he tendered, and the State accepted, pleas of guilty to non-felonious breaking and entering and to non-felonious larceny. Judgment was entered imposing an active sentence of two years upon the first count and a sentence of' one year on the second count to begin at the expiration of the two year sentence imposed on the first count. From this judgment, defendant appealed.
Attorney General T. W. Bruton and Assistant Attorney General Millard R. Rich, Jr., for the State.
Harold T. Dodge for defendant appellant.

Opinion:
PARKER, J.
Appellant's sole assignment of error is to the signing of the judgment. This presents the face of the record proper for review. 1 Strong, N. C. Index 2d, Appeal and Error, § 26, p. 162. Appellant's brief admits that his pleas of guilty were freely and voluntarily entered. The sentences imposed were within statutory limits. G.S. 14-3. Appellant's court-appointed counsel has frankly stated in his brief that he is unable to suggest any error in connection with the proceedings in this case. After careful review of the record, we agree, and find
No error.
Broce and Britt, JJ., concur.