{
  "id": 8549705,
  "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. WILLIAM H. SIMS",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Sims",
  "decision_date": "1969-07-02",
  "docket_number": "No. 6915SC295",
  "first_page": "288",
  "last_page": "290",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "5 N.C. App. 288"
    }
  ],
  "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": "153 S.E. 2d 384",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "269 N.C. 661",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8565470
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/269/0661-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "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": 280,
    "char_count": 5678,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.56,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.20588034283079823
    },
    "sha256": "e6b3a9d93ed90f128edc1b8c8fd57e0b386ec5a4abcc1b55f8217e1a9d527c87",
    "simhash": "1:c749c7f70765a12b",
    "word_count": 974
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:58:43.915660+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Mallard, C.J., and Britt, J., concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. WILLIAM H. SIMS"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "PARKER, J.\nThe judgment here appealed from was entered on 24 January 1969. On 21 January 1969 the North Carolina Supreme Court filed opinion in the case of State v. Morris, 275 N.C. 50, 165 S.E. 2d 245. That case, as does this one, involved an appeal from a judgment rendered upon a conviction of violation of G.S. 20-138. In that case, in an opinion by Huskins, J., the Court held that a defendant who is charged with a serious offense has a constitutional right to the assistance of counsel during his trial in the superior court, and that a serious offense, in the context of that holding, is one for which the authorized punishment exceeds six months\u2019 imprisonment and a $500.00 fine.\nIn the case before us the defendant was not represented by counsel at his trial in the municipal court or in the superior court. The record is silent as to whether he waived the right to counsel. Waiver of counsel may not be presumed from a silent record. State v. Morris, supra. The record before us does disclose that at the March 1969 Criminal Session of Alamance Superior Court the judge then presiding entered an order finding defendant to be an indigent, granting him the right to appeal to this Court in forma pauperis, and appointing counsel to represent him on this appeal. There was no such determination of indigency made at the time of defendant\u2019s trial. For failure of the trial judge to determine whether defendant had waived counsel and in absence of waiver to determine defendant\u2019s indigency and appoint counsel to represent him if he should be found indigent, the judgment must be vacated and a new trial ordered. State v. Morris, supra.\nWe note that the warrant on which defendant was tried is defective insofar as it purports to charge a second offense. For that purpose the warrant should have contained a clear allegation as to when and in what court defendant had been convicted of a prior offense. See, State v. Broome, 269 N.C. 661, 153 S.E. 2d 384. The warrant was, however, sufficient to charge defendant with a first offense violation of G.S. 20-138.\nThe State had sufficient evidence to carry the case to the jury, and defendant\u2019s assignment of error to the failure of the court to enter judgment of nonsuit is without merit. It is not necessary that we discuss defendant\u2019s remaining assignments of error, most of which relate to the judge\u2019s charge to the jury, since in any event there must be a new trial and the questions presented will probably not recur.\nFor the reasons set forth in State v. Morris, supra, which is controlling in this case, defendant is entitled to a\nNew trial.\nMallard, C.J., and Britt, J., concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "PARKER, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney General Robert Morgan, Assistant Attorney General William W. Melvin, and Staff Attorney T. Buie Costen for the State.",
      "John D. Xanthos for defendant appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. WILLIAM H. SIMS\nNo. 6915SC295\n(Filed 2 July 1969)\n1. Constitutional Law \u00a7 32\u2014 right to counsel \u2014 serious offense\nA defendant who is charged with a serious offense has a constitutional right to the assistance of counsel during his trial in the superior court; a serious offense is one for which the authorized punishment exceeds six months\u2019 imprisonment and a $500 fine.\n2. Constitutional Law \u00a7 37\u2014 waiver of counsel\nWaiver of counsel may not be presumed from a silent record.\n3. Constitutional Law \u00a7 32\u2014 right to counsel \u2014 serious offense \u2014 findings of fact\nOn appeal from conviction in the superior court for driving a motor vehicle on a public street while under the influence of intoxicating liquor, a misdemeanor amounting to a serious offense, defendant is entitled to a new trial for failure of the trial judge to determine at the time of trial whether defendant had waived counsel and in absence of waiver to determine defendant\u2019s indigency and appoint counsel to represent him if he should be found indigent.\n4. Automobiles \u00a7 125\u2014 driving under influence \u2014 warrant \u2014 second offense\nIn order to charge a second offense of driving a motor vehicle on a public highway while under the influence of intoxicating liquor, the warrant should contain a clear allegation as to when and in what court defendant had been convicted of a prior offense.\n5. Automobiles \u00a7 125\u2014 driving under influence \u2014 second offense \u2014 validity of warrant\nWarrant charging defendant with the operation of a motor vehicle on a public street \u201cwhile under the influence of intoxicating liquor, in violation of G.S. 20-138, second offense\u201d is held defective insofar as it purports to charge a second offense, although it is sufficient to charge defendant with a first offense violation of G.S. 20T38.\nAppeal by defendant from Bowman, J., January 1969 Session of AlamaNCe Superior Court.\nDefendant was tried in the municipal court of the City of Burlington on a warrant charging him with operating a motor vehicle on a public street in the City of Burlington \u201cwhile under the influence of intoxicating liquor, in violation of G.S. 20-138, second offense. . . .\u201d He was not represented by counsel, was found guilty, and was sentenced to six months in jail, suspended on condition that he pay a fine of $100.00 and the costs. He appealed to the superior court and entered a plea of not guilty. At his trial in superior court he was not represented by counsel. He was found guilty by the jury of the offense of driving under the influence of intoxicating liquor in violation of G.S. 20-138. Upon this verdict judgment was entered on 24 January 1969, sentencing defendant to jail for a term of not less than twelve or more than eighteen months. In apt time and in open court defendant excepted to the entry of this judgment and gave notice of appeal to the Court of Appeals.\nAttorney General Robert Morgan, Assistant Attorney General William W. Melvin, and Staff Attorney T. Buie Costen for the State.\nJohn D. Xanthos for defendant appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0288-01",
  "first_page_order": 310,
  "last_page_order": 312
}