Opinion ID: 1216392
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Legality of Suspended Sentences.

Text: It is the position of the defendants, Gibson, Coble, Graves and Farley, that as they were convicted of misdemeanors, the court was without authority to suspend their sentences on Counts Two and Five for a period of ten years on good behavior; that they did not consent to such suspensions, and that these suspended judgments should be vacated. The position appears to be well taken in the light of G.S. § 15-200 which appears in the Chapter on Criminal Procedure and provides that, The period of probation or suspension of sentence shall not exceed a period of five years and shall be determined by the judge of the court and may be continued or extended, terminated or suspended by the court at any time, within the above limit. In the case of State v. Wilson, 216 N.C. 130, 4 S.E.2d 440, 442, the inherent power of a court having jurisdiction to suspend judgment or stay execution in a criminal case for determinate periods and for a reasonable length of time, was recognized and upheld under authority of the earlier cases, citing some of them, but it was there observed, Since that time the period during which the execution of a sentence in a criminal case may be suspended on conditions has been fixed as five years, regardless of the term of imprisonment authorized by statute, citing the above statute. What was said in Wilson's Case has not been changed or modified in subsequent decisions. State v. Miller, 225 N.C. 213, 34 S.E.2d 143, and cases cited. The general authority recognized in G.S. § 15-197 is to be read in connection with the limitation fixed by G.S. § 15-200. Perhaps it should be noted the defendant, Sammie Scott, has not appealed, and the judgment against the defendant Coble on Count Three is void for uncertainty or indefiniteness; immaterial, however, since only a concurrent sentence was entered on this count. Those who are disposed or inclined to take part in a lottery, or the numbers racket, might do well to read the evidence in this case. It comes from the inside and is quite revealing. Duplicity, fraud, overreaching and false pretense appear to be the basis of operation. Chicanery is also employed. The appeal is to cupidity, rapacity, avarice and covetousness. It is a shabby business, if it can be called a business at all. How any one could hope to gain in such an enterprise is difficult to perceive or to understand. The fixed pattern undoubtedly is heads I win; tails you lose, with just enough lure or bait to attract and mislead the unwary. You can't win at the other fellow's game, especially if he be a charlatan. It would seem that only a knave, a dupe, a simpleton or a blind fish would bite at such a hook. But then, there are those who act as if they think with their feet or only in the aftertime. A fool and his money are soon partedEnglish Proverb. A careful perusal of the transcript leaves us with the impression the validity of the trial should be upheld, but as indicated, the case will be remanded for correction of errors in the suspended judgments. Error and remanded.