{
  "id": 9249579,
  "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. WILLIAM LAMONTE QUICK, Defendant",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Quick",
  "decision_date": "2002-08-06",
  "docket_number": "No. COA01-922",
  "first_page": "220",
  "last_page": "223",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "152 N.C. App. 220"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "N.C. Ct. App.",
    "id": 14983,
    "name": "North Carolina Court of Appeals"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 5,
    "name_long": "North Carolina",
    "name": "N.C."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "300 S.E.2d 351",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1983,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "307 N.C. 628",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8565356
      ],
      "year": 1983,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/307/0628-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "256 S.E.2d 154",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1979,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "160",
          "parenthetical": "citations omitted"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "297 N.C. 485",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8571879
      ],
      "year": 1979,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "495",
          "parenthetical": "citations omitted"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/297/0485-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "529 S.E.2d 247",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 2000,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "252",
          "parenthetical": "describing the standard of review for an ineffective assistance of counsel claim"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "137 N.C. App. 495",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        11094280
      ],
      "year": 2000,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "502",
          "parenthetical": "describing the standard of review for an ineffective assistance of counsel claim"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/137/0495-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "466 U.S. 668",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "U.S.",
      "case_ids": [
        6204802
      ],
      "weight": 9,
      "year": 1984,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "688"
        },
        {
          "page": "693"
        },
        {
          "page": "687"
        },
        {
          "page": "693"
        },
        {
          "page": "694"
        },
        {
          "page": "698"
        },
        {
          "page": "687"
        },
        {
          "page": "693"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/us/466/0668-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "397 U.S. 759",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "U.S.",
      "case_ids": [
        12058501
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1970,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "771"
        },
        {
          "page": "773"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/us/397/0759-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "324 S.E.2d 241",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1985,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "247",
          "parenthetical": "citing McMann v. Richardson, 397 U.S. 759, 771, 25 L. Ed. 2d 763, 773 (1970)"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "312 N.C. 553",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        4753359
      ],
      "year": 1985,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "561",
          "parenthetical": "citing McMann v. Richardson, 397 U.S. 759, 771, 25 L. Ed. 2d 763, 773 (1970)"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/312/0553-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 504,
    "char_count": 8628,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.779,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 3.0877534102874e-07,
      "percentile": 0.8584189657389292
    },
    "sha256": "cd51a59eb12e97e1b601247eb4f8e9b56bb3bf407f683274ea166abd64bfa05b",
    "simhash": "1:caf0dba47635779a",
    "word_count": 1408
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T14:40:03.287783+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges GREENE and BIGGS concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. WILLIAM LAMONTE QUICK, Defendant"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "HUDSON, Judge.\nDefendant appeals his convictions for two counts of assault with a deadly weapon with intent to kill inflicting serious injury, possession of cocaine, and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, for which he was sentenced to a minimum 362 months and a maximum 454 months.\nThe charges all arose out of an altercation between defendant, William Lamont Quick, and two Raleigh police officers who were securing a home where they believed illegal drugs were being sold. During these events, defendant shot and injured Officer R.B. Edmundson and Officer R.L. Warner, and the officers shot at defendant. Defendant ran away from the area, but later turned himself into authorities.\nAs a result of this incident, defendant was indicted for possession with intent to sell and deliver cocaine, two counts of assault with a deadly weapon with intent to kill inflicting serious injury, two counts of attempted murder, possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, and possession of a stolen firearm. Before trial, defendant attempted suicide twice and was held \u201cunder a safekeeping order in the Mental Health Ward at Central Prison.\u201d Because he was indigent, defendant requested and received funds from the state to employ \u201can expert in the field of forensic psychology to examine, evaluate and prepare to testify on behalf of the defendant in this matter.\u201d The defendant employed Dr. James E. Bellard, a forensic psychiatrist, who examined defendant and prepared a report concerning defendant\u2019s mental condition. At trial, defendant\u2019s attorney introduced the report under seal, but did not call Dr. Bellard to testify until the sentencing hearing.\nAt the trial, the State presented the testimony of the two officers involved, who testified that defendant fired on them first. Defendant contended during trial that he shot the officers in self-defense, and his attorney presented evidence to that effect. Defendant himself testified that he was running away from the scene when he heard gunshots behind him, and he shot back at the officers.\nAt the close of the State\u2019s evidence, the trial court dismissed the charge of possession of a stolen weapon. On 8 May 2000, the jury found defendant guilty of two counts of assault with a deadly weapon with intent to kill inflicting serious injury, possession of cocaine, and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, for which he was sentenced to a minimum 362 months and a maximum 454 months. The court also recommended that defendant receive mental health treatment while incarcerated. Defendant appeals his convictions.\nIn his sole argument, defendant contends that he \u201creceived ineffective assistance of counsel in violation of his rights under the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article I, Section[] 23 of the North Carolina Constitution by counsel\u2019s failure to introduce expert testimony of defendant\u2019s mental illness to negate the mental state required for the offenses for which defendant was charged.\u201d Defendant raised six additional assignments of error in the Record on Appeal, but, as none have been brought forward, they are deemed abandoned. See N.C. R. App. Proc. 28(a) (2001).\n\u201cA defendant\u2019s right to counsel includes the right to the effective assistance of counsel.\u201d State v. Braswell, 312 N.C. 553, 561, 324 S.E.2d 241, 247 (1985) (citing McMann v. Richardson, 397 U.S. 759, 771, 25 L. Ed. 2d 763, 773 (1970)). To obtain relief for ineffective assistance of counsel, the defendant must demonstrate initially that \u201chis counsel\u2019s conduct fell below an objective standard of reasonableness.\u201d Id. at 561-62, 324 S.E.2d at 248 (citing Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 688, 80 L. Ed. 2d 674, 693 (1984)). The defendant\u2019s burden of proof requires the following:\nFirst, the defendant must show that counsel\u2019s performance was deficient. This requires showing that counsel made errors so serious that counsel was not functioning as the \u201ccounsel\u201d guaranteed the defendant by the Sixth Amendment. Second, the defendant must show that the deficient performance prejudiced the defense. This requires showing that counsel\u2019s errors were so serious as to deprive the defendant of a fair trial, a trial whose result is reliable.\nStrickland, 466 U.S. at 687, 80 L. Ed. 2d at 693. \u201cThe defendant must show that there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel\u2019s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different. A reasonable probability is a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome.\u201d Id. at 694, 80 L. Ed. 2d at 698; see also State v. Montford, 137 N.C. App. 495, 502, 529 S.E.2d 247, 252 (2000) (describing the standard of review for an ineffective assistance of counsel claim).\nDefendant contends that his attorney erred by not calling Dr. Bellard to testify during the trial, because Dr. Bellard\u2019s testimony might have negated the defendant\u2019s ability to form the specific intent necessary to commit the crimes charged. Additionally, he argues that Dr. Bellard\u2019s testimony might have provided the evidentiary basis for an instruction to the jury on voluntary intoxication and diminished capacity. \u201cThe decisions on what witnesses to call, whether and how to conduct cross-examination, . . . and all other strategic and tactical decisions are the exclusive province of the lawyer after consultation with his client. Trial counsel are necessarily given wide latitude in these matters.\u201d State v. Milano, 297 N.C. 485, 495, 256 S.E.2d 154, 160 (1979) (citations omitted), overruled on other grounds by State v. Grier, 307 N.C. 628, 300 S.E.2d 351 (1983).\nFurther, we have reviewed the report which was submitted to this Court as part of the Record. In part, Dr. Bellard states:\n3. Because of his mental illness, Mr. Quick did not, on the night of the crime, fully grasp the wrongfulness of his actions. It is my opinion that Mr. Quick did know right from wrong at the time of the crime. His mental illness was not so severe that it rendered him unable to distinguish from right and wrong. His mental illness was so severe however as to make less clear to him the wrongfulness of his actions. His Mania and drug abuse made him paranoid and considerably more defensive and he believed at the time of the crime that he had \u201ca right to defend himself.\u201d\n4. Mr. Quick\u2019s prognosis is fair. If he can be persuaded to be consistent and regular with taking his medications, he is likely to show a good improvement from his Bipolar illness. Also, in an incarcerated setting, he is much less likely to abuse drugs.\nBased on our review, we are not persuaded that, had the doctor testified at trial, his testimony necessarily would have helped the defendant. Under these circumstances, we have no basis to conclude that counsel\u2019s decision not to call the doctor as a witness at the trial was anything other than a sound tactical choice.\nConsequently, defendant has not satisfied the first prong of Strickland, in that he has not shown that his counsel\u2019s performance was deficient. See Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687, 80 L. Ed. 2d at 693. Thus, we do not reach the second prong of the Strickland test. See id. Accordingly, given the standard of review of these issues, we conclude that counsel\u2019s failure to call Dr. Bellard to testify did not render counsel\u2019s assistance constitutionally defective.\nNo error.\nJudges GREENE and BIGGS concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "HUDSON, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney General Roy Cooper, by Special Deputy Attorney General Charles J. Murray, for the State.",
      "Lig\u00f3n and Hinton, by Lemuel W. Hinton, for the defendant-appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. WILLIAM LAMONTE QUICK, Defendant\nNo. COA01-922\n(Filed 6 August 2002)\nConstitutional Law\u2014 effective assistance of counsel \u2014 tactical decision\nA defendant in an assault with a deadly weapon with intent to kill inflicting serious injury, possession of cocaine, and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon case did not receive ineffective assistance of counsel by failing to call as a witness a psychiatrist who had examined defendant to offer testimony of defendant\u2019s mental illness to negate the mental state required for the offenses where the psychiatrist\u2019s report had concluded that defendant did know right from wrong at the time of the crimes, the psychiatrist\u2019s testimony would not have necessarily helped defendant if he had been called as a witness, and there is no basis to conclude that counsel\u2019s decision not to call a doctor as a witness at the trial was anything other than a sound tactical choice.\nAppeal by defendant from judgments entered 8 May 2000 by Judge Henry W. Hight, Jr. in Wake County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 14 May 2002.\nAttorney General Roy Cooper, by Special Deputy Attorney General Charles J. Murray, for the State.\nLig\u00f3n and Hinton, by Lemuel W. Hinton, for the defendant-appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0220-01",
  "first_page_order": 248,
  "last_page_order": 251
}
