State v. White, No. 654
| Docket Nº | No. 654 |
| Citation | 262 N.C. 52, 136 S.E.2d 205 |
| Case Date | May 20, 1964 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of North Carolina |
Page 205
v.
Clarence WHITE.
Page 206
T. W. Bruton, Atty. Gen., and Harry W. McGalliard, Deputy Atty. Gen., for the State.
Wade H. Penny, Jr., Durham, for defendant appellant.
PARKER, Justice.
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 review of the constitutionality of his criminal trial cannot 'inhibit or clog' his right of review of the constitutionality of his trial by forcing him to accept the hazard of receiving a greater sentence than was imposed on him at his first trial, if he is successful in obtaining a new trial and is convicted again on the same indictment of the same offense; that this is a violation of his rights under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
Defendant at his request was granted a new trial of his case tried at the May 1961 Criminal Term in which he was found guilty as charged in the indictment, which under our decisions results in a retrial of the whole case, verdict, judgment, and sentence. State v. Chase, 231 N.C. 589, 58 S.E.2d 364; State v. Correll, 229 N.C. 640, 50 S.E.2d 717, cert. den. 336 U.S. 969, 69 S.Ct. 941, 93 L.Ed. 1120; State v. Beal, 202 N.C. 266, 162 S.E....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Patton v. State of North Carolina, No. 11005.
...of that conviction — including the sentence imposed by the first judge and any time served under that sentence.4 In State v. White, 262 N.C. 52, 136 S.E.2d 205 (1964), the North Carolina Supreme Court stated that a "is not entitled as a matter of law to credit against the second sentence fo......
-
North Carolina v. Pearce Simpson v. Rice, Nos. 413 and 418
...in sentence where the defendant can show that it reflects an intent to punish him for seeking a new trial is one instance, State v. White, 262 N.C. 52, 136 S.E.2d 205 (1964). Of the States that prohibit increased sentencing upon retrial, some rest on state standards of double jeopardy, Peop......
-
Patton v. State of North Carolina, Civ. No. 2397.
...a new trial (Patton) must be deemed to have consented to a wiping out of all the consequences of the first trial." State v. White, 262 N.C. 52, 136 S.E.2d 205 at 208 (4) "(H)e is not entitled as a matter of law to credit against the second sentence for time served under the original sentenc......
-
State v. Stafford, No. 495
...268 N.C. 707, 151 S.E.2d 571; State v. Slade, 264 N.C. 70, 140 S.E.2d 723; State v. Merritt, 264 N.C. 716, 142 S.E.2d 687; State v. White, 262 N.C. 52, 136 S.E.2d 205, cert. denied, 379 U.S. 1005, 85 S.Ct. 726, 13 L.Ed.2d 707 (1965). Page 374 The total of the time served under the two sente......
-
Patton v. State of North Carolina, No. 11005.
...of that conviction — including the sentence imposed by the first judge and any time served under that sentence.4 In State v. White, 262 N.C. 52, 136 S.E.2d 205 (1964), the North Carolina Supreme Court stated that a "is not entitled as a matter of law to credit against the second sentence fo......
-
Patton v. State of North Carolina, Civ. No. 2397.
...a new trial (Patton) must be deemed to have consented to a wiping out of all the consequences of the first trial." State v. White, 262 N.C. 52, 136 S.E.2d 205 at 208 (4) "(H)e is not entitled as a matter of law to credit against the second sentence for time served under the original sentenc......
-
State v. Stafford, No. 495
...268 N.C. 707, 151 S.E.2d 571; State v. Slade, 264 N.C. 70, 140 S.E.2d 723; State v. Merritt, 264 N.C. 716, 142 S.E.2d 687; State v. White, 262 N.C. 52, 136 S.E.2d 205, cert. denied, 379 U.S. 1005, 85 S.Ct. 726, 13 L.Ed.2d 707 (1965). Page 374 The total of the time served under the two sente......
-
Kelly v. State of North Carolina, Civ. No. 2020.
...the first trial obliterated, including the punishment. In other words, the first trial and its results are totally voided. State v. White, 262 N.C. 52, 136 S.E.2d 205 (1964). This argument has stood for so long a time probably because it sounds rather logical, but as a practical matter, how......