State v. Rippy

3 Citing cases

  1. State v. Adams

    146 S.E.2d 505 (N.C. 1966)   Cited 12 times
    In Adams the defendant had been found guilty of involuntary manslaughter and sentenced to a term of not less than eighteen years nor more than twenty years in prison.

    This Court, in State v. Blackmon, 260 N.C. 352, 132 S.E.2d 880, held that punishment "in the discretion of the court" is not specific punishment and hence is governed by the limits (10 years for felonies and two years for misdemeanors) prescribed in G.S. 14-2 and 14-3. In so holding, the Blackmon decision followed State v. Driver, 78 N.C. 423, and overruled State v. Swindell, 189 N.C. 151, 126 S.E. 417, and State v. Cain, 209 N.C. 275, 183 S.E. 300, both of which were based on the dictum in State v. Rippy, 127 N.C. 516, 37 S.E. 148. In Rippy the punishment was within the limits of G.S. 14-2. The effect of the decision in Blackmon is to hold the maximum provided in G.S. 14-2 and 14-3 places a ceiling on the court's power to punish by imprisonment when a ceiling is not otherwise fixed by law.

  2. State v. Richardson

    221 N.C. 209 (N.C. 1942)   Cited 5 times

    The answer is in the affirmative. S. v. Rippy, 127 N.C. 516, 37 S.E. 148; S. v. Swindell, 189 N.C. 151, 126 S.E. 417. In the case of S. v. Dunn, 208 N.C. 333, 180 S.E. 708, this Court passed upon the proviso added to C. S., 4201, of North Carolina, by chapter 249, Public Laws of 1933.

  3. State v. Smith

    94 S.E. 910 (N.C. 1917)

    " Under the ruling in S. v. Rippy, 127 N.C. 516, this later section, bearing directly on the case of assaults, with or without intent to kill, making provision for punishment of such offenses, is to be regarded as specific, within the meaning of the statute, and entirely withdraws the case of assault from the operation of section 3293. Both of the sections, however, were considered in S. v. McNeil, 75 N.C. 15, and it was directly held that neither provision authorized imprisonment in the penitentiary for the offense of assault and battery.