State v. Sherron, 746
| Decision Date | 14 December 1966 |
| Docket Number | No. 746,746 |
| Citation | 151 S.E.2d 599,268 N.C. 694 |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | STATE, v. Claiborne Lee SHERRON. |
T. W. Bruton, Atty. Gen., Ralph Moody, Deputy Atty. Gen., for the State.
Anthony M. Brannon, Durham, for defendant appellant.
G.S. § 15--4.1. When a defendant charged with a felony is not represented by counsel, before he is required to plead, the judge of the Superior Court shall advise the defendant that he is entitled to counsel. If the judge finds that the defendant is indigent and unable to employ counsel, he shall appoint counsel for the defendant but the defendant may waive the right to counsel in all cases except a capital felony by a written waiver executed by the defendant, signed by the presiding judge and filed in the record in the case. The 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 unless the defendant executes a written waiver of counsel as above specified.
Interpreting the statute, it is clearly apparent that the Legislature intended to make a distinction between the right of one charged with a felony to have court-appointed counsel and the duty to appoint attorneys for persons charged with a misdemeanor. It places upon the judge the affirmative duty to advise the defendant in felony cases that he is entitled to counsel and to appoint counsel for him if he is indigent, or unless the defendant executes a written waiver of his right thereto. None of these provisions are included as to misdemeanors, and even for an indigent defendant the judge may exercise his discretion as to appointing 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:
Until the Supreme Court of the United States holds otherwise, we shall continue to follow the ruling in the Bennett case, supra.
That Court had the opportunity in the recent case of Winters v. Beck, 87 S.Ct. 207 (October, 1966) to hold that all persons charged with any kind of misdemeanor were entitled to court-appointed counsel, but declined to do so.
There the defendant was charged with a violation of an Arkansas statute against immorality, a misdemeanor, for which the punishment could have been as much as three years. He was not represented by counsel, was convicted, and received a sentence of some nine months. The Supreme Court of Arkansas held that his constitutional rights had not been violated. He sought Certiorari to the Supreme Court of the United...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cableton v. State
...or cited with approval in other jurisdictions. See, e.g., City of Toledo v. Frazier, 10 Ohio App.2d 51, 226 N.E.2d 777; State v. Sherron, 268 N.C. 694, 151 S.E.2d 599; City of New Orleans v. Cook, 249 La. 820, 191 So.2d In Florida, the arena in which at least five of the 'constitutional rig......
-
State v. Morris, 414
...deems that justice so requires), or (3) to waive representation by counsel and conduct his own defense.' In State v. Sherron, 268 N.C. 694, 151 S.E.2d 599 (1966), defendant was tried for three misdemeanors and convicted on two charges of malicious injury to personal property with a maximum ......
-
MacDonnel v. Com.
...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.E.2d 599. Other cases, however, interpret the Gideon decision as having application to misdemeanors. These cases reject the vi......
-
State v. Morris, 6822SC218
...less is not waiver.' This same argument was advanced and was considered by the Supreme Court of North Carolina in State v. Sherron, 268 N.C. 694, 151 S.E.2d 599. In that case, Pless, J., speaking for the Court referred to the North Carolina Statute pertaining to appointment of counsel for i......