Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1965

State v. Garris

Supreme Court of North Carolina · Decided November 24, 1965 · Cueiam

144 S.E.2d 901; 265 N.C. 711; 1965 N.C. LEXIS 1087 (South Eastern Reporter, Second Series)

Cases that cite this one

20 later published cases cite this decision.

Jones v. Keller (N.C. 2010)
State v. Brouwer (S.C. Ct. App. 2001)
State v. Gaytan (N.C. Ct. App. 2014)
Waddell v. Department of Correction (4th Cir. 2012)
State v. Shelman (N.C. Ct. App. 2003)
State v. Thompson (N.C. Ct. App. 1981)
State v. Legette (N.C. 1977)
State v. Barrow (N.C. 1977)
Matter of Imprisonment of Stevens (N.C. Ct. App. 1976)
State v. Slade (N.C. 1976)
State v. Cross (N.C. Ct. App. 1975)
State v. McClinton (N.C. Ct. App. 1973)
Goble v. Bounds (N.C. Ct. App. 1972)
State v. Farris (N.C. Ct. App. 1970)
Harris v. North Carolina (District Court, M.D. North Carolina 1970)
State v. Abbott (N.C. Ct. App. 1969)
Burns v. Page (Okla. Crim. App. 1968)
State v. Shoemaker (N.C. 1968)
State v. McCall (N.C. 1968)
Brown v. Hooks (District Court, W.D. North Carolina 2019)

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

PER Cueiam.

Defendant contends (1) that the sentence imposed is excessive, (2) that the sentence is discriminatory in that other defendants tried on similar charges at the same session were given shorter sentences, and (3) that defendant will suffer double punishment because the prison department “will take (away) all the good time and change his release date,” thereby extending the former sentence and adding thereto the sentence herein imposed.

The foregoing objections are not sustained. The sentence of one year was not excessive; the court could have imposed a two-year sentence. G.S. 148-45. There is no requirement of law that defendants charged with similar offenses be given the same punishment. The punishment imposed in a particular case, if within statutory limits, is within the sound discretion of the presiding judge. The prison rules and regulations respecting rewards and privileges for good conduct (“good time”) are strictly administrative and not judicial. G.S. 148-13. The legislature has authorized the State Prison Commission to promulgate, publish, enforce and apply such rules. G.S. 148-11. Whether a prisoner shall benefit thereby depends on his own conduct. The giving or withholding of the rewards and privileges under *713 these rules is not a matter with which the courts are authorized to deal.

Affirmed.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.