(a) Punishment. - Burglary in the first degree shall be punishable as a Class D felony, and burglary in the second degree shall be punishable as a Class G felony.
(b) Enhancement. - If a person possessed a firearm about his or her person during the commission of an offense under G.S. 14-51, in addition to any other sentence enhancement required by law, the person shall be sentenced at a felony class level one class higher than the principal felony for which the person was convicted. An indictment or information for the felony shall allege in that indictment or information the facts that qualify the offense for an enhancement under this subsection. One pleading is sufficient for all felonies that are tried at a single trial. (1870-1, c. 222; Code, s. 994; 1889, c. 434, s. 2; Rev., s. 3330; C.S., s. 4233; 1941, c. 215, s. 1; 1949, c. 299, s. 2; 1973, c. 1201, s. 3; 1977, c. 871, s. 2; 1979, c. 672; 1979, c. 760, s. 5; 1979, 2nd Sess., c. 1316, s. 47; 1981, c. 63, s. 1; c. 179, s. 14; 1993, c. 539, s. 1151; 1994, Ex. Sess., c. 24, s. 14(c); 2025-71, s. 10(b).)
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
49
cases, 1946–2020 · leading case:
State v. Waddell, 194 S.E.2d 19 (N.C. 1973).
State v. Waddell, 194 S.E.2d 19 (N.C. 1973).
· cites it 40× “§ 14-17 (murder), G.S. § 14-52 (burglary), and G.S. § 14-58 (arson); or it may wish to rewrite these statutes altogether to give expression to what it conceives to be the public will.”
State v. Jarrette, 202 S.E.2d 721 (N.C. 1974).
· cites it 21× “It is neither the function nor the purpose of this Court to defend or justify Furman, the stated reasons for it or the results which have flowed from it. Our function and intent has been, and is, to comply with it and to determine its effect upon the statutes of North Carolina,…”
State v. Wall, 502 S.E.2d 585 (N.C. 1998).
· cites it 24× “In this case we decide: (1) whether the superior court’s order directing that defendant’s sentences be served concurrently was in violation of N.C.G.S. § 14-52, and (2) whether defendant is entitled to a remedy for his reliance on the validity of his plea agreement.”
State v. Ellis, 639 S.E.2d 425 (N.C. 2007).
· cites it 9× “” N.C.G.S. § 14-52 (1993) (repealed effective 1 January 1995).”
State v. Jones, 598 S.E.2d 125 (N.C. 2004).
· cites it 3× “§ 14-39(b) (2003) (noting that first-degree kidnapping “is punishable as a Class C felony” and that second-degree kidnapping “is punishable as a Class E felony”); N.C.G.S. § 14-52 (2003) (stating that “[b]urglary in the first degree shall be punishable as a Class D felony, and…”
State v. Johnson, 257 S.E.2d 597 (N.C. 1979).
· cites it 4× “By this same enactment it rewrote G.S. 14-52 and G.S. 14-58 to provide that life imprisonment would be the mandatory penalty for first degree burglary and arson, respectively.”
State v. Williams, 212 S.E.2d 113 (N.C. 1975).
· cites it 6× “§ 14-17, dealing with murder, G.S. § 14-52, dealing with burglary, G.S.”
State v. Foster, 200 S.E.2d 782 (N.C. 1973).
· cites it 6× “Defendant's first assignment of error is overruled. Defendant's second and third assignments of error are based on denial of his motions to quash the bill of indictment and in arrest of judgment.”
State v. Warren, 328 S.E.2d 256 (N.C. 1985).
· cites it 6× “G.S. 14-52 sets out the punishment for first and second degree burglary.”
State v. Woodson, 215 S.E.2d 607 (N.C. 1975).
· cites it 6× “§ 14-58), enacted in 1949; and (2) that until the statutes which made death the punishment for first-degree murder, first-degree burglary, rape, and arson were rewritten or amended by the General Assembly, this Court could not reinstate capital punishment.”
State v. Goodman, 322 S.E.2d 408 (N.C. Ct. App. 1984).
· cites it 4× “The presumptive term for first degree burglary (G.S. 14-52; Class C felony) is fifteen years.”
Teasley v. Beck, 574 S.E.2d 137 (N.C. Ct. App. 2002).
· cites it 3× “The following relevant statutes have since been amended: N.C.G.S. §§ 14-52 (1986) (defining punishment for burglary) and 15A-1355(c) (1988) (calculating terms of imprisonment).”
— N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-52(a) — 3 cases
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.