State v. Bennett, 249
| Decision Date | 23 March 1966 |
| Docket Number | No. 249,249 |
| Citation | 266 N.C. 755,147 S.E.2d 237 |
| Parties | STATE, v. John C. BENNETT. |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
John C. Bennett, in pro. per.
T. W. Bruton, Atty. Gen., Theodore C. Brown, Jr., Staff Atty., Raleigh, for the State.
The defendant makes nine assignments of error but in his brief says 'I am not familiar with the law on trial procedure and I am; therefore, unable to comment on these exceptions,' referring to exceptions five through nine inclusive. In Rules of Practice in the Supreme Court, Rule 28, 254 N.C. 810, these exceptions are 'taken as abandoned' but we have nevertheless given them consideration and find no substantial error.
The remaining exceptions, one to four, relate to the defendant's request that the court appoint counsel for him and the court's refusal to do so. There is no sufficient showing that the defendant is indigent since it appears that the defendant is a certified public accountant, drives his own car, and has an income of 'about' $3,000.
The North Carolina General Statutes, § 15--4.1 says '* * * (t)he judge may in his discretion appoint counsel for an indigent defendant charged with a misdemeanor if in the opinion of the judge such appointment is warranted.' By the action of the trial judge in denying the defendant's request that counsel be appointed for him, the judge demonstrated that in his opinion such an appointment was not warranted, and in this we concur. This was a petty misdemeanor and was tried in the Superior Court because the defendant refused to pay a $25.00 fine. The evidence of his guilt was impressive and he could have had little hope of being acquitted in the Superior Court even with the assistance of he most astute counsel.
We do not conceive it to be the absolute right of a defendant charged with a misdemeanor, petty or otherwise, to have court-appointed and -paid counsel. To hold differently would mean that one charged with overtime parking could require the state to provide counsel at many times the expense of the trivial fine involved.
The Statute with reference to the appointment of counsel for indigent defendants charged with misdemeanors leaves the matter to the sound discretion of the presiding judge. Some misdemeanors and some circumstances might justify the appointment of counsel, but this is not true in all misdemeanors. The facts of an individual case would determine the action of the court and it is not intended that anything in this opinion shall...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Morris, 414
...to appoint counsel for indigent defendants if in the opinion of the judge such appointment is warranted. In State v. Bennett, 266 N.C. 755, 147 S.E.2d 237 (1966), defendant was charged with a petty misdemeanor the punishment for which could not exceed imprisonment for thirty days or a fine ......
-
MacDonnel v. Com.
...does not and cannot require that the guiding hand of counsel be provided'. See Fish v. State, 159 So.2d 866, 868 (Fla.); State v. Bennett, 266 N.C. 755, 147 S.E.2d 237 (no requirement of counsel in minor misdemeanor, where small fine imposed); State v. Sherron, 268 N.C. 694, 696--697, 151 S......
-
State v. Sherron, 746
...counsel, and shall do so only when the judge is of the opinion that the appointment is warranted. In the recent case of State v. Bennett, 266 N.C. 755, 147 S.E.2d 237, we said: 'We do not conceive it to be the absolute right of a defendant charged with a misdemeanor, petty or otherwise, to ......
-
State v. White, 6825SC261
...misdemeanors and some circumstances might justify the appointment of counsel, but this is not true in all misdemeanors.' State v. Bennett, 266 N.C. 755, 147 S.E.2d 237; State v. Morris, 2 N.C.App. 262, 163 S.E.2d The defendant further contends that there was error in the trial court in allo......