136 S.E.2d 205 (N.C. 1964), 654, State v. White
|Citation:||136 S.E.2d 205, 262 N.C. 52|
|Party Name:||STATE, v. Clarence WHITE.|
|Case Date:||May 20, 1964|
|Court:||Supreme Court of North Carolina|
T. W. Bruton, Atty. Gen., and Harry W. McGalliard, Deputy Atty. Gen., for the State.
Wade H. Penny, Jr., Durham, for defendant appellant.
Since the citizens of North Carolina in the General Election of 6 November 1962, by a majority of the votes cast, amended Article IV of the State Constitution, Terms of the superior court are now designated in this Article of the Constitution as Sessions of court. At the May 1961 Criminal Term of Durham County superior court, Williams, J., presiding, defendant here was tried on the same indictment as in the instant case. There is nothing in the record before us to indicate as to whether or not Carlton M. Jones was tried with him at the May 1961 Criminal Term. He, Clarence White defendant here, entered a plea of not guilty. The jury returned against him a verdict of guilty as charged in the indictment. Williams, J., sentenced him to imprisonment for a term of ten years. He did not appeal and began to serve his sentence.
Subsequently--the date is not set forth in the record--defendant Clarence White filed a petition, by virtue of the provisions of G.S. Ch. 15, Art. 22, entitled 'Review of the Constitutionality of Criminal Trials,' requesting a new trial of his case which was tried at the May 1961 Criminal Term, for the reason that he requested the presiding judge at that trial to appoint counsel to represent him, stating that by reason of his poverty he was unable to employ counsel to represent him, and that the court refused to do so, and that he did not waive his [262 N.C. 54] right to be represented by counsel. At the July 1963 Criminal Session, Hall, J., heard his petition, and by reason of the decision in Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335, 83 S.Ct. 792, 9 L.Ed.2d 799--filed 18 March 1963--and acting under the power vested in him by G.S. Ch. 15, Art. 22, vacated the verdict of guilty as charged in the indictment returned against petitioner at the May 1961 Criminal Term and the judgment of imprisonment imposed upon petitioner at that term, and ordered a new trial for petitioner on the ground that he had been denied the right of counsel to represent him at his trial at the May 1961 Criminal Term.
Defendant has two assignments of error, both to the judgment. His first assignment of error is that Judge Latham 'erred in imposing upon the defendant a sentence greater than that imposed upon the defendant at his first trial when the defendant was convicted of the same identical offense.'
Defendant contends that the State in meeting its 'due process' duty of providing ways for a defendant after conviction to obtain a...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP