{
  "id": 8555397,
  "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. FRED RONALD MANESS",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Maness",
  "decision_date": "1969-05-28",
  "docket_number": "No. 6919SC241",
  "first_page": "658",
  "last_page": "661",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "4 N.C. App. 658"
    }
  ],
  "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": "165 S.E. 2d 245",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "275 N.C. 50",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8557770
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/275/0050-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 306,
    "char_count": 6137,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.587,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.2240919645422112e-07,
      "percentile": 0.603357763329059
    },
    "sha256": "29f6c6107dd8b17c57a65ac0c6a36eac613a5f1d1bd10df9634296f4140f4f33",
    "simhash": "1:2645fb0697f5ac8a",
    "word_count": 1026
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:50:38.610889+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Mallard, C.J., and ParKer, J., concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. FRED RONALD MANESS"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Beitt, J.\n\u25a0 The record before us leaves much to be desired. Defendant\u2019s exception No. 1, which is the basis for the first assignment of error, states \u201cthe Court erred in ruling that Defendant, who was indigent and unable to employ Counsel, was not entitled to Court appointed Counsel in a misdemeanor case.\u201d The only proof we have regarding defendant\u2019s exception No. 1 is the following sentence contained in the Statement of Case on Appeal: \u201cDefendant appeals assigning error in the conduct of the trial and in particular in that he was indigent and counsel was not appointed for him, the Court having ruled that in a misdemeanor case defendant was not entitled to have Court appointed Counsel.\u201d Evidently the record on appeal, including the Statement of Case on Appeal, was prepared by defendant\u2019s present counsel, but the record contains an agreement signed by said counsel and the district solicitor stipulating and agreeing on the record on appeal.\nThe record also contains a \u201cCertificate of Judge\u201d which purports to be a certificate signed by Crissman, J., on 27 November 1968 to the effect that defendant was fully informed in open court of the charges against him and of his right to have counsel appointed by the court to represent him in this case, but that defendant elected in open court to be tried without counsel and has executed \u201cthe above waiver\u201d after its meaning and effect had been fully explained to him. The record contains no waiver. On 15 April 1969, defendant\u2019s counsel filed in this Court a \u201cmotion and affidavit to expunge record.\u201d The motion relates to the \u201cCertificate of Judge\u201d above-referred to and alleges that said certificate is not a part of the record in this case but is a part of the record in another case tried in Randolph Superior Court and was not intended to be included in the record in this case. The attorney general accepted service of the motion on 14 April 1969 but has filed no answer to the motion. On 6 May 1969, defendant\u2019s counsel filed in this Court a stipulation signed by him and the district solicitor to the effect that the \u201cCertificate of Judge\u201d contained on page 4 of the record in the instant case is not a part of the record in State v. Fred Ronald Maness. Pursuant to the stipulation signed by the district solicitor, and in the absence of any answer by the attorney general to defendant\u2019s motion to expunge the record, we have allowed the motion.\nWhen the \u201cCertificate of Judge\u201d is deleted from the record before us, we conclude that the defendant appeared in Randolph Superior Court without counsel, that he pled not guilty, was tried without the assistance of counsel, was found guilty as charged by a jury, and was sentenced to eight months in prison.\nIn State v. Morris, 275 N.C. 50, 165 S.E. 2d 245, filed 21 January 1969, the defendant was tried in superior court on a charge of driving a motor vehicle on a public street while under the influence of intoxicants; he was not represented by counsel in his trial in the superior court, was found guilty by a jury, and was sentenced to prison for eighteen months. Defendant appealed to the Court of Appeals where he was represented by privately-employed counsel; this Court upheld the conviction and sentence. Defendant then appealed to the Supreme Court of North Carolina, asserting violations of his constitutional rights. In an opinion by Huskins, J., the Supreme Court ordered a new trial, holding that by virtue of the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, a defendant who is charged with a misdemeanor amounting to a serious offense has a constitutional right to the assistance of counsel during his trial; that a serious offense is one for which the authorized punishment exceeds six months imprisonment and $500 fine; and waiver of counsel may not be presumed from a silent record. The court further held, as stated in headnote 8, that where defendant is charged with a misdemeanor amounting to a serious offense and is not represented by privately-employed counsel, the presiding judge must (1) settle the question of defendant\u2019s indigency and (2) if defendant is indigent, appoint counsel to represent him unless counsel is knowingly and understanding^ waived; these findings and determinations should appear of record.\nThe attorney general concedes that if the \u201cCertificate of Judge\u201d is deleted from the record in this case, we are confronted with virtually the same situation the Supreme Court considered in Morris. We perceive no material distinction in the two cases and conclude that the instant case is controlled by Moms.\nFor the reasons stated, it is ordered that defendant be awarded a\nNew trial.\nMallard, C.J., and ParKer, J., concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Beitt, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney General Robert Morgan, Assistant Attorney General William W. Melvin and Staff Attorney T. Buie Costen for the State.",
      "John Randolph Ingram for defendant appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. FRED RONALD MANESS\nNo. 6919SC241\n(Filed 28 May 1969)\nConstitutional Law \u00a7 82\u2014 right to counsel \u2014 misdemeanor amounting to a serious offense\nIn prosecution in the superior court for driving a motor vehicle on a public highway while under the influence of intoxicating liquor, a misdemeanor amounting to a serious offense, defendant is entitled to a new trial where it appears that he was tried and found guilty without the assistance of counsel, and the record is silent on the questions of whether defendant was an indigent and whether he voluntarily and understandingly waived his right to counsel.\nAppeal by defendant from Crissman, J., at the 25 November 1968 Criminal Session of RANDOLPH Superior Court.\nDefendant was charged in a warrant issued from the Asheboro Recorder\u2019s Court with driving a motor vehicle on a public highway while under the influence of intoxicating liquor. Defendant was found guilty in the recorder\u2019s court and was given a twelve-months prison sentence from which he appealed to the Superior Court of Randolph County.\nIn superior court, defendant appeared without counsel, pled not guilty, was found guilty by a jury, and was given an eight-months prison sentence from which he appealed to this Court.\nAttorney General Robert Morgan, Assistant Attorney General William W. Melvin and Staff Attorney T. Buie Costen for the State.\nJohn Randolph Ingram for defendant appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0658-01",
  "first_page_order": 678,
  "last_page_order": 681
}