State v. . Cockerham
Cases that cite this one
17 later published cases cite this decision.
- State v. Watson (N.C. Ct. App. 2018)
- State v. . Vickers (N.C. 1922)
- Miller v. Evans (Iowa 1901)
- Commonwealth v. Blair (Pa. Super. Ct. 1997)
- Veit v. Caldwell (District Court, E.D. North Carolina 1975)
- People Ex Rel. Ellis v. Babb (Ill. 1952)
- In re Smith (N.C. 1940)
- People Ex Rel. Kerner v. McKinley (Ill. 1939)
- People Ex Rel. Crews v. Toman (Ill. 1937)
- State v. . McAfee (N.C. 1930)
- Hopkins v. North (Md. 1926)
- Massey v. Cunningham (Ark. 1925)
- Bernstein v. United States (4th Cir. 1918)
- Ex Parte Alexander (Okla. Crim. App. 1911)
- State v. Abbott (S.C. 1911)
- Ex Parte Eldridge (Okla. Crim. App. 1910)
- In re McCauley (Wis. 1904)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
The time, at which a sentence shall be carried into execution, forms no part of the judgment of the court. The judgment is the penalty of the law, as declared by the court, while the direction, with respect to the time of carryiug it into eifect, is in the nature of an award of execution. In this case the judgment was that the defendant be imprisoned two calendar months; and the words, which follow in the record, “ from and after the 1st of November next,” direct the time of executing the judgment. The entry, indeed, would have been more formal, had the judgment and the mandate for carrying it into effect been separate and distinct, But, however informal, it can be understood, in conformity to the law, as consisting of distinct parts, and therefore ought to be so understood. Upon the defendant appearing in court and his identity not being denied, and it being admitted that the sentence of the court had not been executed, it was proper to make the necessary order for carrying the sentence into execution. There is therefore no error in the order appealed from. This opinion must be certified to the Superior Court of Haywood with the appropriate directions.
Per Curiam, Ordered accordingly,.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.