punishment violation in North Carolina

1985In Harvell v. Scheidt, 249 N.C. 699 , 107 S.E. 2d 549 (1959), our Supreme Court stated: It is well to keep in mind that the suspension or revocation of a driver’s license is no part of the punishment for the violation or violations of traffic laws.

1985In Harvell v. Scheidt, 249 N.C. 699 , 107 S.E. 2d 549 (1959), our Supreme Court stated: It is well to keep in mind that the suspension or revocation of a driver’s license is no part of the punishment for the violation or violations of traffic laws.

1985We held in Financial Services that where the statute expressly designates the offense and clearly states the punishment for its violation, “the legislative bodies dealt with the matter completely and did not intend to in *630 validate conveyances of real property because of failure to follow the provisions of this penal legislation.” Id. at 135 , 217 S.E. 2d at 560 .

1985We held in Financial Services that where the statute expressly designates the offense and clearly states the punishment for its violation, “the legislative bodies dealt with the matter completely and did not intend to in *630 validate conveyances of real property because of failure to follow the provisions of this penal legislation.” Id. at 135 , 217 S.E. 2d at 560 .

1976The Court said, 197 Mo. at 664 , 94 S.W. at 966 : “But where fines and penalties are prescribed as a punishment for a violation of public wrongs, i.e., crimes, and such penalties or fines are to be recovered by public authority, the disposition of such recovered fines or penalties comes within the constitutional provision under consideration, and they may not be turned awry from the prescribed constitutional course.” In the case at bar Judge Walker considered thirty-four different judgments rendered in the various courts of Guilford County which the clerk claims run afoul of the Constitution i

1976The Court said, 197 Mo. at 664 , 94 S.W. at 966 : “But where fines and penalties are prescribed as a punishment for a violation of public wrongs, i.e., crimes, and such penalties or fines are to be recovered by public authority, the disposition of such recovered fines or penalties comes within the constitutional provision under consideration, and they may not be turned awry from the prescribed constitutional course.” In the case at bar Judge Walker considered thirty-four different judgments rendered in the various courts of Guilford County which the clerk claims run afoul of the Constitution i

1970They argue that the punishment for a violation of G.S. 20-174.1 is controlled by G.S. 20-176 (b) as interpreted and applied in State v. Massey, 265 N.C. 579 , 144 S.E. 2d 649 .

1970They argue that the punishment for a violation of G.S. 20-174.1 is controlled by G.S. 20-176 (b) as interpreted and applied in State v. Massey, 265 N.C. 579 , 144 S.E. 2d 649 .

1970The purpose of the suspension or revocation of a driver’s license is to protect the public and not to punish the licensee.’ ” The defendant cites State v. Hughes, 6 N.C.

1961The license or permit to so operate *610 is not a contract or property right in a constitutional sense.’ Commonwealth v. Ellett, 174 Va. 403 , 4 S.E. 2d 762 .” It was pointed out in Harvell v. Scheidt, Comr. of Motor Vehicles, 249 N.C. 699 , 107 S.E. 2d 549 , that, it is well to keep in mind that the suspension or revocation of a driver’s license is no part of the punishment for the violation or violations of traffic laws.

1961The license or permit to so operate *610 is not a contract or property right in a constitutional sense.’ Commonwealth v. Ellett, 174 Va. 403 , 4 S.E. 2d 762 .” It was pointed out in Harvell v. Scheidt, Comr. of Motor Vehicles, 249 N.C. 699 , 107 S.E. 2d 549 , that, it is well to keep in mind that the suspension or revocation of a driver’s license is no part of the punishment for the violation or violations of traffic laws.

1921That point has been recently reviewed and held adversely to tbe contention of tbe defendant in S. v. Woodlief, 172 N. C., 885 , where it was held, “'Where a statute leaves a punishment for its violation within tbe sound discretion of tbe trial court, tbe sentence imposed will not be reviewed by this Court on appeal where its exercise has not been grossly and palpably abused,” and there is nothing in tbe record which tends to show that such was tbe case.