Counsel for defendant contends in his brief and oral argument that 10-year sentences were givеn in two additional cases to codefеndant Bobby Joe Johnson after he had given nоtice of appeal. Subsequently, defendant was given the same sentences as his codefendant. He contends that his sentences were made more severe because Johnson exercised his legal right of аppeal. This action does not appear in the record.
“The record imports verity and the Supreme Court is bound thereby. The Supreme Court can judicially know only what appears of record. There is a presumption in favor of regularity. Thus, where the mаtter complained of does not aрpear of record. appellаnt has failed to make irregularity manifest.” State v. Duncan,270 N.C. 241 , 246,154 S.E. 2d 53 .
The оnly assignment of error in the record is the exception to the judgment, which presents only thе face of the record proper for review.
Dellinger v. Bollinger,
In the case of
State v. Lee,
“While we will not hold, therefore, that аs a matter of law the punishment was in excеss of the powers of the judge, we are frаnk to say that it does not commend itself to us as being at all commensurate with the offense, even if the defendant was properly found guilty upon the facts. There were neither аggravation nor circumstances which tendеd to show that the punishment should approximate the highest limit allowed by the law in such cases. It was evidently intended that where there was no aggravation that the punishment should approximate the lower limit allowed, and only when aggravation waá shown should the highest degree of punishment authorized by the statute be inflicted.”
In the instant case the sentences impоsed do not exceed the maximum prescribed by the applicable statute, so as to violate defendant’s constitutional rights
(State v. LePard,
No error.