sentence violation in North Carolina

38 North Carolina opinions name it 3 courts 1796–2025 6 in the last five years

The cases below were cited by North Carolina courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.

Followed or applied (11)

Case	Followed	Cited
State v. Boonegreen nc · 1977 · cited in 19 North Carolina opinions naming this issue, 1987–2025 2 sentences 2025“If the record discloses that the [trial] court considered irrelevant and improper matter in determining the severity of the sentence, the presumption of regularity is overcome, and the sentence is in violation of [the] defendant’s rights.” State v. Boone, 293 N.C. 702, 712 , 239 S.E.2d 459, 465 (1977) (citation omitted). 2025“If the record discloses that the [trial] court considered irrelevant and improper matter in determining the severity of the sentence, the presumption of regularity is overcome, and the sentence is in violation of [the] defendant’s rights.” State v. Boone, 293 N.C. 702, 712 , 239 S.E.2d 459, 465 (1977) (citation omitted).	9	19
State v. Cannongreen nc · 1990 · cited in 5 North Carolina opinions naming this issue, 2007–2021 2 sentences 2021“A criminal defendant may not be punished at sentencing for exercising [his] constitutional right to trial by jury.” State v. Cannon, 326 N.C. 37, 39 , 387 S.E.2d 450, 451 (1990); see also Johnson, 265 N.C. 2021“A criminal defendant may not be punished at sentencing for exercising [his] constitutional right to trial by jury.” State v. Cannon, 326 N.C. 37, 39 , 387 S.E.2d 450, 451 (1990); see also Johnson, 265 N.C.	5	5
State v. Johnsongreen nc · 1987 · cited in 5 North Carolina opinions naming this issue, 2009–2021 2 sentences 2021“If the record discloses that the court considered irrelevant and improper matter in determining the severity of the sentence, the presumption of regularity is overcome, and the sentence is in violation of defendant's rights.” Id. 2021“If the record discloses that the court considered irrelevant and improper matter in determining the severity of the sentence, the presumption of regularity is overcome, and the sentence is in violation of defendant's rights.” Id.	3	5
State v. Swinneygreen nc · 1967 · cited in 5 North Carolina opinions naming this issue, 1977–2010 2 sentences 2010"If the record discloses that the [trial] court considered irrelevant and improper matter in determining the severity of the sentence, the presumption of regularity is overcome, and the sentence is in violation of [the] defendant's rights." Id. (citing State v. Swinney, 271 N.C. 130, 133 , 155 S.E.2d 545, 548 (1967)). 2010"If the record discloses that the [trial] court considered irrelevant and improper matter in determining the severity of the sentence, the presumption of regularity is overcome, and the sentence is in violation of [the] defendant's rights." Id. (citing State v. Swinney, 271 N.C. 130, 133 , 155 S.E.2d 545, 548 (1967)).	2	5
State v. Santillangreen ncctapp · 2018 · cited in 2 North Carolina opinions naming this issue, 2021–2021 2 sentences 2021App. 394, 396 , 815 S.E.2d 690, 692 (2018) (vacating the defendant’s two sentences and remanding for a new sentence hearing upon the State’s concession “the trial court failed to make sufficient findings to support the two sentences”). 2021App. 394, 396 , 815 S.E.2d 690, 692 (2018) (vacating the defendant’s two sentences and remanding for a new sentence hearing upon the State’s concession “the trial court failed to make sufficient findings to support the two sentences”).	2	2
State v. Johnsongreen ncctapp · 2019 · cited in 2 North Carolina opinions naming this issue, 2021–2021 2 sentences 2021“A criminal defendant may not be punished at sentencing for exercising [his] constitutional right to trial by jury.” State v. Cannon, 326 N.C. 37, 39 , 387 S.E.2d 450, 451 (1990); see also Johnson, 265 N.C. 2021“A criminal defendant may not be punished at sentencing for exercising [his] constitutional right to trial by jury.” State v. Cannon, 326 N.C. 37, 39 , 387 S.E.2d 450, 451 (1990); see also Johnson, 265 N.C.	2	2
State v. Camerongreen ncctapp · 1986 · cited in 1 North Carolina opinions naming this issue, 2014–2014 2 sentences 2014“If the record discloses that the court considered irrelevant and improper matter in determining the severity of the sentence, the presumption of regularity is overcome, and the sentence is in violation of defendant’s rights.” State v. Johnson, 320 N.C. 746, 753 , 360 S.E.2d 676, 681 (1987) (citation and quotation omitted). “ A judgment will not be disturbed because of sentencing procedures unless there is a showing of abuse of discretion, procedural conduct prejudicial to defendant, circumstances which manifest inherent unfairness and injustice, or conduct which offends the public sense of fa 2014App. 69, 76 , 349 S.E.2d 327, 332 (1986) (quoting State v. Pope, 257 N.C. 326, 335 , 126 S.E.2d 126, 133 (1962)).	1	1
State v. Brightgreen · 1980 · cited in 1 North Carolina opinions naming this issue, 2014–2014 2 sentences 2014“When the validity of a judgment is challenged, the burden is on the defendant to show error amounting to a denial of some substantial right.” State v. Bright, 301 N.C. 243, 261 , 271 S.E.2d 368, 379-80 (1980). 2014“When the validity of a judgment is challenged, the burden is on the defendant to show error amounting to a denial of some substantial right.” State v. Bright, 301 N.C. 243, 261 , 271 S.E.2d 368, 379-80 (1980).	1	1
State v. Popegreen nc · 1962 · cited in 1 North Carolina opinions naming this issue, 2014–2014 2 sentences 2014App. 69, 76 , 349 S.E.2d 327, 332 (1986) (quoting State v. Pope, 257 N.C. 326, 335 , 126 S.E.2d 126, 133 (1962)). 2014App. 69, 76 , 349 S.E.2d 327, 332 (1986) (quoting State v. Pope, 257 N.C. 326, 335 , 126 S.E.2d 126, 133 (1962)).	1	1
State v. Pategreen ncctapp · 2007 · cited in 1 North Carolina opinions naming this issue, 2009–2009 2 sentences 2009Though a court's consideration of irrelevant and improper matter in determining the severity of a sentence is in violation of a defendant's rights, "[a] sentence within the statutory limit will be presumed regular and valid." State v. Pate, 187 N.C. 2009App. 442, 450 , 653 S.E.2d 212, 217 (2007) (citation omitted).	1	1
Erwin v. . Arthurgreen nc · 1804 · cited in 1 North Carolina opinions naming this issue, 1796–1796	1	1

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

Case	Negative	Cited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in North Carolina. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (22)

Case	Cited	Years
State v. Snowden green ncctapp · 1975 2 sentences 2009"If the record discloses that the [trial] court considered irrelevant and improper matter in determining the severity of the sentence, the presumption of regularity is overcome, and the sentence is in violation of [the] defendant's rights." State v. Boone, 293 N.C. 702, 712 , 239 S.E.2d 459, 465 (1977); see also State v. Swinney, 271 N.C. 130 , 155 S.E.2d 545 (1967) (vacating and remanding for entry of proper judgment where the trial court imposed the sentence, not for involuntary manslaughter to which the defendant had entered a plea, but for having participated in the dinner and dance party 2009App. 45 , 215 S.E.2d 157 (vacating and remanding for a new sentencing hearing where the record affirmatively showed the sentences were imposed based upon improper reasons which included a mistaken assumption that the offenders would be released after service of only one-fourth of their sentences), cert. denied, 288 N.C. 251 , 217 S.E.2d 675 (1975).	2	1979–2009
State v. . Utley green nc · 1943 2 sentences 1953State v. Utley, 223 N.C. 39 , 25 S.E.2d 195 . 1953State v. Utley, 223 N.C. 39 , 25 S.E.2d 195 .	2	1953–1953
State v. Pinkerton green ncctapp · 2010 1 sentence 2019"The extent to which a trial court imposed a sentence based upon an improper consideration is a question of law subject to de novo review." State v. Pinkerton , 205 N.C.	1	2019–2019
State v. Snowden neutral nc · 1975 1 sentence 2009App. 45 , 215 S.E.2d 157 (vacating and remanding for a new sentencing hearing where the record affirmatively showed the sentences were imposed based upon improper reasons which included a mistaken assumption that the offenders would be released after service of only one-fourth of their sentences), cert. denied, 288 N.C. 251 , 217 S.E.2d 675 (1975).	1	2009–2009
State v. Simon neutral nc · 1975 1 sentence 2009App. 45 , 215 S.E.2d 157 (vacating and remanding for a new sentencing hearing where the record affirmatively showed the sentences were imposed based upon improper reasons which included a mistaken assumption that the offenders would be released after service of only one-fourth of their sentences), cert. denied, 288 N.C. 251 , 217 S.E.2d 675 (1975).	1	2009–2009
State v. Gantt green ncctapp · 2003 1 sentence 2008“A defendant has the right to plead not guilty, and ‘he should not and cannot be punished for exercising that right.’ ” Gantt, *298 161 N.C.	1	2008–2008
Higgins v. BUILDERS AND FINANCE INCORPORATED green ncctapp · 1973 2 sentences 2007Higgins, 20 N.C.App. at 10 , 200 S.E.2d at 404 . 2007Higgins, 20 N.C.App. at 10 , 200 S.E.2d at 404 .	1	2007–2007
State v. Powell green nc · 1961 2 sentences 1989Counsel for defendant who was also counsel at trial enigmatically now argues on appeal that since there was no formal stipulation at the sentence hearing "the prosecutor's mere assertion of the evidence in a statement to the court is totally insufficient to support the findings in aggravation." Defendant, citing cases such as State v. Powell, 254 N.C. 231 , 118 S.E.2d 617 (1961), points out that while there is no particular form to be followed for a stipulation, the terms, nevertheless, must be definite and certain, and must be assented to by the parties. 1989Counsel for defendant who was also counsel at trial enigmatically now argues on appeal that since there was no formal stipulation at the sentence hearing "the prosecutor's mere assertion of the evidence in a statement to the court is totally insufficient to support the findings in aggravation." Defendant, citing cases such as State v. Powell, 254 N.C. 231 , 118 S.E.2d 617 (1961), points out that while there is no particular form to be followed for a stipulation, the terms, nevertheless, must be definite and certain, and must be assented to by the parties.	1	1989–1989
State v. Ahearn green nc · 1983 2 sentences 1984The Supreme Court of North Carolina has held that “in every case in which it is found that the judge erred in a finding or findings in aggravation and imposed a sentence beyond the presumptive term, the case must be remanded for a new sentence hearing.” State v. Ahearn, 307 N.C. at 602 , 300 S.E. 2d at 701 . 494 Although only one error in sentencing requires us to remand a case for a new sentencing hearing we have pointed out more than one improper finding in aggravation in the case before us merely to emphasize the increasing likelihood of error where additional non-statutory aggravating fac 1984The Supreme Court of North Carolina has held that “in every case in which it is found that the judge erred in a finding or findings in aggravation and imposed a sentence beyond the presumptive term, the case must be remanded for a new sentence hearing.” State v. Ahearn, 307 N.C. at 602 , 300 S.E. 2d at 701 . 494 Although only one error in sentencing requires us to remand a case for a new sentencing hearing we have pointed out more than one improper finding in aggravation in the case before us merely to emphasize the increasing likelihood of error where additional non-statutory aggravating fac	1	1984–1984
State v. Downey green nc · 1960 2 sentences 1964State v. Downey, 253 N.C. 348 , 117 S.E. 2d 39 ; State v. Wilson, 218 N.C. 769 , 12 S.E. 2d 654 ; State v. Woodlief, 172 N.C. 885 , 90 S.E. 137 . 1964State v. Downey, 253 N.C. 348 , 117 S.E. 2d 39 ; State v. Wilson, 218 N.C. 769 , 12 S.E. 2d 654 ; State v. Woodlief, 172 N.C. 885 , 90 S.E. 137 .	1	1964–1964
State v. . Wilson green nc · 1941 2 sentences 1964State v. Downey, 253 N.C. 348 , 117 S.E. 2d 39 ; State v. Wilson, 218 N.C. 769 , 12 S.E. 2d 654 ; State v. Woodlief, 172 N.C. 885 , 90 S.E. 137 . 1964State v. Downey, 253 N.C. 348 , 117 S.E. 2d 39 ; State v. Wilson, 218 N.C. 769 , 12 S.E. 2d 654 ; State v. Woodlief, 172 N.C. 885 , 90 S.E. 137 .	1	1964–1964
State v. . Woodlief green nc · 1916 2 sentences 1964State v. Downey, 253 N.C. 348 , 117 S.E. 2d 39 ; State v. Wilson, 218 N.C. 769 , 12 S.E. 2d 654 ; State v. Woodlief, 172 N.C. 885 , 90 S.E. 137 . 1964State v. Downey, 253 N.C. 348 , 117 S.E. 2d 39 ; State v. Wilson, 218 N.C. 769 , 12 S.E. 2d 654 ; State v. Woodlief, 172 N.C. 885 , 90 S.E. 137 .	1	1964–1964
Battle v. . Shore neutral nc · 1929 1 sentence 1945S. v. Payne, 213 N. C., 719 , 197 S. E., 573 ; S. v. Miller, 197 N. C., 445 , 149 S. E., 590 ; S. v. Benson, 183 N. C., 795 , 111 S. E., 869 ; S. v. Thomas, supra. “Any unlawful killing of a human being with malice aforethought is murder; but if nothing further characterizes the offense, it is murder in the second degree — to' constitute the higher offense, there must be willfulness, deliberation, premeditation.” People v. Cox, 76 Cal., 285 , quoted with approval in S. v. Fuller, supra. True it is, in other portions of the charge both terms are correctly defined, but here the court was underta	1	1945–1945
State v. . McClure neutral nc · 1914 2 sentences 1945The case of S. v. McClure, 166 N. C., 321 , 81 S. E., 458 , is cited as a controlling authority. 1945The case of S. v. McClure, 166 N. C., 321 , 81 S. E., 458 , is cited as a controlling authority.	1	1945–1945
State v. . Payne green nc · 1938 2 sentences 1945S. v. Payne, 213 N. C., 719 , 197 S. E., 573 ; S. v. Miller, 197 N. C., 445 , 149 S. E., 590 ; S. v. Benson, 183 N. C., 795 , 111 S. E., 869 ; S. v. Thomas, supra. “Any unlawful killing of a human being with malice aforethought is murder; but if nothing further characterizes the offense, it is murder in the second degree — to' constitute the higher offense, there must be willfulness, deliberation, premeditation.” People v. Cox, 76 Cal., 285 , quoted with approval in S. v. Fuller, supra. True it is, in other portions of the charge both terms are correctly defined, but here the court was underta 1945S. v. Payne, 213 N. C., 719 , 197 S. E., 573 ; S. v. Miller, 197 N. C., 445 , 149 S. E., 590 ; S. v. Benson, 183 N. C., 795 , 111 S. E., 869 ; S. v. Thomas, supra. “Any unlawful killing of a human being with malice aforethought is murder; but if nothing further characterizes the offense, it is murder in the second degree — to' constitute the higher offense, there must be willfulness, deliberation, premeditation.” People v. Cox, 76 Cal., 285 , quoted with approval in S. v. Fuller, supra. True it is, in other portions of the charge both terms are correctly defined, but here the court was underta	1	1945–1945
State v. . Benson green nc · 1922 2 sentences 1945S. v. Payne, 213 N. C., 719 , 197 S. E., 573 ; S. v. Miller, 197 N. C., 445 , 149 S. E., 590 ; S. v. Benson, 183 N. C., 795 , 111 S. E., 869 ; S. v. Thomas, supra. “Any unlawful killing of a human being with malice aforethought is murder; but if nothing further characterizes the offense, it is murder in the second degree — to' constitute the higher offense, there must be willfulness, deliberation, premeditation.” People v. Cox, 76 Cal., 285 , quoted with approval in S. v. Fuller, supra. True it is, in other portions of the charge both terms are correctly defined, but here the court was underta 1945S. v. Payne, 213 N. C., 719 , 197 S. E., 573 ; S. v. Miller, 197 N. C., 445 , 149 S. E., 590 ; S. v. Benson, 183 N. C., 795 , 111 S. E., 869 ; S. v. Thomas, supra. “Any unlawful killing of a human being with malice aforethought is murder; but if nothing further characterizes the offense, it is murder in the second degree — to' constitute the higher offense, there must be willfulness, deliberation, premeditation.” People v. Cox, 76 Cal., 285 , quoted with approval in S. v. Fuller, supra. True it is, in other portions of the charge both terms are correctly defined, but here the court was underta	1	1945–1945
State v. . Miller neutral nc · 1929 1 sentence 1945S. v. Payne, 213 N. C., 719 , 197 S. E., 573 ; S. v. Miller, 197 N. C., 445 , 149 S. E., 590 ; S. v. Benson, 183 N. C., 795 , 111 S. E., 869 ; S. v. Thomas, supra. “Any unlawful killing of a human being with malice aforethought is murder; but if nothing further characterizes the offense, it is murder in the second degree — to' constitute the higher offense, there must be willfulness, deliberation, premeditation.” People v. Cox, 76 Cal., 285 , quoted with approval in S. v. Fuller, supra. True it is, in other portions of the charge both terms are correctly defined, but here the court was underta	1	1945–1945
State v. . Mehaffey neutral nc · 1927 2 sentences 1945S. v. Payne, 213 N. C., 719 , 197 S. E., 573 ; S. v. Miller, 197 N. C., 445 , 149 S. E., 590 ; S. v. Benson, 183 N. C., 795 , 111 S. E., 869 ; S. v. Thomas, supra. “Any unlawful killing of a human being with malice aforethought is murder; but if nothing further characterizes the offense, it is murder in the second degree — to' constitute the higher offense, there must be willfulness, deliberation, premeditation.” People v. Cox, 76 Cal., 285 , quoted with approval in S. v. Fuller, supra. True it is, in other portions of the charge both terms are correctly defined, but here the court was underta 1945S. v. Payne, 213 N. C., 719 , 197 S. E., 573 ; S. v. Miller, 197 N. C., 445 , 149 S. E., 590 ; S. v. Benson, 183 N. C., 795 , 111 S. E., 869 ; S. v. Thomas, supra. “Any unlawful killing of a human being with malice aforethought is murder; but if nothing further characterizes the offense, it is murder in the second degree — to' constitute the higher offense, there must be willfulness, deliberation, premeditation.” People v. Cox, 76 Cal., 285 , quoted with approval in S. v. Fuller, supra. True it is, in other portions of the charge both terms are correctly defined, but here the court was underta	1	1945–1945
State v. . Greer green nc · 1917 1 sentence 1924The Attorney-General also relies upon the following cases as supporting, either directly or in tendency, the order and judgment entered below: S. v. Strange, 183 N. C., 175 ; S. v. Vickers, 184 N. C., 677 ; S. v. Hoggard, 180 N. C., 678 ; S. v. Greer, 173 N. C., 759 ; S. v. Everitt, 164 N. C., 399 .	1	1924–1924
State v. Everitt green · 1913	1	1924–1924
State v. . Hoggard green nc · 1920 1 sentence 1924The Attorney-General also relies upon the following cases as supporting, either directly or in tendency, the order and judgment entered below: S. v. Strange, 183 N. C., 175 ; S. v. Vickers, 184 N. C., 677 ; S. v. Hoggard, 180 N. C., 678 ; S. v. Greer, 173 N. C., 759 ; S. v. Everitt, 164 N. C., 399 .	1	1924–1924
State v. Hardin green nc · 1922	1	1924–1924

Statutes the citing opinions construe

NC § N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-1340.17 (6) NC § N.C. Gen. Stat. § 8C-1 (4) NC § N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-1340.12 (3) NC § N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-1340.16 (3) NC § N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-1443 (3) NC § N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-1446 (3) NC § N.C. Gen. Stat. § 90-95 (3)

Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.

Where else courts name it

AL 132 (1890–2025) TN 106 (1976–2025) OH 95 (1992–2026) PA 93 (1919–2026) IL 92 (1909–2026) CA 84 (1898–2026) FL 72 (1947–2016) IN 64 (1880–2020) NC 38 (1796–2025) WA 37 (1918–2025) TX 34 (1927–2024) LA 33 (1917–2018) SC 33 (1975–2025) AZ 26 (1963–2024) MS 24 (1969–2018) GA 23 (1917–2021) NE 21 (1904–2021) NY 20 (1848–2023) MI 17 (1977–2023) IA 17 (1899–2021) MN 17 (1987–2025) KS 14 (1916–2025) NJ 14 (1951–2021) MA 13 (1988–2025) ID 12 (1971–2024) RI 12 (1977–2017) OR 12 (1917–2026) MT 12 (1923–2021) MO 11 (1905–2020) MD 11 (1973–2020) CO 11 (1910–2025) CT 11 (1943–2023) WI 9 (1964–2008) NH 8 (1976–2013) SD 7 (1989–2015) AK 7 (1969–2024) UT 6 (2006–2015) NM 6 (1960–2020) OK 5 (1969–2021) ME 5 (1982–2026) KY 5 (1925–2024) AR 5 (1977–1987) HI 4 (1999–2018) DE 3 (1942–2022) WY 3 (1935–1997) NV 3 (2014–2020) VA 2 (1946–2025) VI 2 (2014–2017) ND 2 (2006–2020)

Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check