{
  "id": 8548627,
  "name": "DOUGLAS EUGENE LAWRENCE v. STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA",
  "name_abbreviation": "Lawrence v. State",
  "decision_date": "1973-05-23",
  "docket_number": "No. 7327SC254",
  "first_page": "260",
  "last_page": "263",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "18 N.C. App. 260"
    }
  ],
  "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": "395 U.S. 238",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "U.S.",
      "case_ids": [
        1771759
      ],
      "weight": 3,
      "year": 1969,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/us/395/0238-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "185 S.E. 2d 152",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1971,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "280 N.C. 137",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8570137
      ],
      "year": 1971,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/280/0137-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "407 U S. 25",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "U.S.",
      "case_ids": [
        9136521
      ],
      "weight": 3,
      "year": 1972,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "37"
        },
        {
          "page": "2012"
        },
        {
          "page": "538"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/us/407/0025-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 350,
    "char_count": 6475,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.528,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.2058592991328838
    },
    "sha256": "e4b522270983d0098c52ea26f6393cfea64eafd661f5c476184c090d53e492b9",
    "simhash": "1:9ddb960256014c77",
    "word_count": 1056
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:14:36.293491+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges Britt and Vaughn concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "DOUGLAS EUGENE LAWRENCE v. STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "MORRIS, Judge.\nThe only question for our determination is whether defendant was entitled to court-appointed counsel at his trial.\nOn 12 June 1972 the Supreme Court of the United States held \u201cthat absent a knowing and intelligent waiver, no person may be imprisoned for any offense, whether classified as petty, misdemeanor, or felony, unless he was represented by counsel at his trial.\u201d Argersinger v. Hamlin, 407 U S. 25, 37, 92 S.Ct. 2006, 2012, 32 L.Ed. 2d 530, 538 (1972). In denying defendant Lawrence\u2019s petition for writ of habeas corpus, Judge McLean held that since defendant was tried for the misdemeanor offenses prior to the Argersinger decision, and since the authorized punishment did not exceed six months\u2019 imprisonment or a five hundred dollar fine, defendant was not entitled to court-appointed counsel. At the time defendant Lawrence was tried and sentenced G.S. 7A-451 (a)(1) provided that an indigent defendant was entitled to court-appointed counsel in \u201c[a]ny felony case, and any misdemeanor case for which the authorized punishment exceeds six months imprisonment or a five hundred dollars ($500.00) fine.\u201d\nDefendant contends that (1) Argersinger should be applied retroactively, and (2) irrespective of the application of Arger-singer, taking the eleven charges against him together, which could and did result in imprisonment for more than six months, he was denied his rights under G.S. 7A-451(a) (1) as then in force.\nIn answer to defendant\u2019s second contention it was held in State v. Speights, 280 N.C. 137, 185 S.E. 2d 152 (1971), that an indigent defendant\u2019s Sixth Amendment right to counsel was not violated by the refusal of the trial court to appoint counsel to represent him in a trial of two petty misdemeanors arising out of the same incident even though the combined punishment for both offenses could have exceeded six months\u2019 imprisonment. Each offense was examined separately, and since neither exceeded the six months\u2019 limit, defendant was not entitled to appointed counsel.\nHere defendant pleaded guilty to eleven counts of violating G.S. 14-107. G.S. 14-107 provides, in pertinent part, the following:\n\u201cAny person, firm or corporation violating any provision of this section shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction shall be punished as follows:\n(1) If the amount of such check or draft is not over fifty dollars ($50.00), the punishment shall be by a fine not to exceed fifty dollars ($50.00) or imprisonment for not more than 30 days. Provided, however, if such person has been convicted three times of violating G.S. 14-107, he shall on the fourth and all subsequent convictions be punished in the discretion of the district or superior court as for a general misdemeanor.\n(2) If the amount of such check or draft is over fifty dollars ($50.00), the punishment shall be by a fine not to exceed five hundred dollars ($500.00) or imprisonment for not more than six months, or both. Provided, however, if such person has been convicted three times of violating G.S. 14-107, he shall on the fourth and all subsequent convictions be punished in the discretion of the district or superior court as for a general misdemeanor.\u201d (Emphasis supplied.)\nAs to punishment upon conviction of a misdemeanor, G.S. 14-3(a) provides, in pertinent part:\n\u201c[E] very person who shall be convicted of any misdemeanor for which no specific punishment is prescribed by statute shall be punishable by fine, by imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years, or by both, in the discretion of the court.\u201d (Emphasis supplied.)\nOf the eleven charges against defendant Lawrence under G.S. 14-107, six were for issuing worthless checks in amounts below $50 and five were for amounts above $50. In any event, upon his fourth conviction for any of these, defendant could have been incarcerated for as long as two years as a general misdemeanant. We are of the opinion that defendant, faced initially with eleven charges of violating G.S. 14-107 consolidated for trial, was entitled to court-appointed counsel, absent a knowing and intelligent waiver. This result, in our opinion, is required by reason of the punishment provisions of G.S. 14-107, and decision is not inconsistent with State v. Speights, supra. For the reason stated, defendant must be given a new trial.\nWe do not reach the question of whether Argersinger applies retroactively, nor do. we discuss the fact that the record does not meet the requirements of Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238, 89 S.Ct. 1709, 23 L.Ed. 2d 274 (1969), with respect to the voluntariness of the pleas of guilty.\nNew trial.\nJudges Britt and Vaughn concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "MORRIS, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney General Morgan, by Associate Attorney Maddox, for the State.",
      "Ramsewr & Gingles, by Ralph C. Gingles, Jr., for plaintiff appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "DOUGLAS EUGENE LAWRENCE v. STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA\nNo. 7327SC254\n(Filed 23 May 1973)\nConstitutional Law \u00a7 32\u2014 indigent defendant \u2014 possible punishment in excess of six months \u2014 right to court appointed counsel\nWhere eleven charges were made against defendant, six for issuing worthless checks in amounts below $50 and five for checks in amounts above $50, the indigent defendant was entitled to court-appointed counsel under G.S. 7A-451(a)(l) since, upon his fourth conviction for any of the charges against him, defendant could have been incarcerated for as long as two years as a general mis-demeanant. G.S. 14-107.\nON certiorari from the order of McLean, Judge, entered at the 20 November 1972 Session of Gaston County Superior Court.\nDefendant Lawrence was tried at the 4 January 1972 Criminal Session of Gaston County District Court on eleven charges of issuing worthless checks in violation of G.S. 14-107. Lawrence was not represented by counsel, and in open court he pleaded guilty to all eleven charges. Upon his pleas of guilty, judgments were entered sentencing Lawrence to active terms of four months on five of the charges and 30 days on the rest, all to run consecutively.\nOn 7 September 1972, defendant filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus alleging- that he was illegally and unconstitutionally imprisoned on the grounds that (1) his constitutional rights had not been explained to him' at the time of his arrest and at trial and (2) that his request for court-appointed counsel upon grounds of indigency had been improperly denied. Defendant\u2019s petition was heard by Judge McLean and denied on 22 November 1972. This Court allowed defendant\u2019s petition for writ of certiorari on 9 January 1973.\nAttorney General Morgan, by Associate Attorney Maddox, for the State.\nRamsewr & Gingles, by Ralph C. Gingles, Jr., for plaintiff appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0260-01",
  "first_page_order": 284,
  "last_page_order": 287
}