{
  "id": 2643514,
  "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. HOWARD WASHINGTON",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Washington",
  "decision_date": "1981-04-07",
  "docket_number": "No. 8010SC747",
  "first_page": "458",
  "last_page": "460",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "51 N.C. App. 458"
    }
  ],
  "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": "235 S.E. 2d 866",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1977,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "33 N.C. App. 593",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8551234
      ],
      "year": 1977,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/33/0593-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "229 S.E. 2d 163",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1976,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "291 N.C. 37",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8557269
      ],
      "year": 1976,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/291/0037-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "229 S.E. 2d 572",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1976,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "291 N.C. 91",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8557348
      ],
      "year": 1976,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/291/0091-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "262 S.E. 2d 695",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1980,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "45 N.C. App. 297",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8548517
      ],
      "year": 1980,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/45/0297-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "201 S.E. 2d 840",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1974,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "284 N.C. 427",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8562720
      ],
      "year": 1974,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/284/0427-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 317,
    "char_count": 4079,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.737,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 6.8330052001468e-08,
      "percentile": 0.41691233736020905
    },
    "sha256": "8dc35c08a8fac78a7fe20312488de2bdccb277663f4c03f41bc2f4c8961e23c5",
    "simhash": "1:c85b425a1c9b5eb4",
    "word_count": 697
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:24:29.581265+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges Wells and Hill concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. HOWARD WASHINGTON"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "ARNOLD, Judge.\nDefendant contends the court erred in entering a civil judgment against him granting attorney\u2019s fees to the State of North Carolina. We agree. G.S. 7A-455 provides that the court may enter a civil judgment against a convicted indigent for attorney\u2019s fees and costs. Our courts have upheld the validity of such a judgment provided that the defendant is given notice of the hearing held in reference thereto and an opportunity to be heard. State v. Crews, 284 N.C. 427, 201 S.E. 2d 840 (1974); State v. Stafford, 45 N.C. App. 297, 262 S.E. 2d 695 (1980). Since the record before us contains nothing to indicate that a hearing was held in compliance with the above decisions, we vacate this civil judgment and remand for a hearing on proper notice to the defendant. By our decision we do not reach defendant\u2019s argument as to the constitutionality of G.S. 7A-455.\nAlthough we note that defendant now concedes on appeal that he can find no error in the court\u2019s denial of his motion for nonsuit, we have carefully reviewed the record and also find no prejudicial error.\nThe record on appeal contains no less than 18 pages dealing with matters, among which are the court\u2019s charge to the jury and defendant\u2019s motion for appropriate relief, to which no assignment of error was made and which have no bearing on the issues raised by this appeal. This is in violation of North Carolina Rule of Appellate Procedure 9(b)(5). Counsel will be taxed with the unnecessary printing costs in this case in accordance with Rule 9(b)(5). State v. Montgomery, 291 N.C. 91, 229 S.E. 2d 572 (1976); State v. Monk, 291 N.C. 37, 229 S.E. 2d 163 (1976); State v. Minshew, 33 N.C. App. 593, 235 S.E. 2d 866 (1977).\nIn the criminal conviction we find no error.\nThe civil judgment is vacated and remanded.\nJudges Wells and Hill concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "ARNOLD, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney General Edmisten, by Associate Attorney Jane P. Gray, for the State.",
      "Howard & Morelock, by Robert E. Howard, for defendant appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. HOWARD WASHINGTON\nNo. 8010SC747\n(Filed 7 April 1981)\n1. Attorneys at Law \u00a7 7.2- indigent defendant \u2014 judgment for counsel fees - absence of notice and hearing\nThe trial court erred in entering a judgment against the indigent defendant for attorney fees and costs without giving defendant notice and an opportunity to be heard. G.S. 7A-455.\n2. Criminal Law \u00a7\u00a7 145,157.1- record on appeal - unnecessary material - costs taxed against counsel\nCounsel is taxed with the cost of printing 18 pages in the record on appeal which have no bearing on the issues raised by the appeal. Appellate Rule 9(b)(5).\nAppeal by defendant from Brannon, Judge. Judgment entered 25 March 1980 in Superior Court, Wake County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 6 January 1981.\nDefendant was indicted for larceny from the person and misdemeanor assault. State presented evidence that on 25 July 1979 Junior Tucker, Jesse Holloman and Arthur Matthews were walking near the Civic Center in Raleigh, when two black males, one of whom was the defendant, \u201chollered\u201d to them across the street to ask if they had any \u201creefer.\u201d The men crossed the street and approached them. Tucker, who was carrying a radio belonging to Matthews, was confronted by defendant who stated, \u201cThat\u2019s a nice radio\u201d and then snatched it from Tucker\u2019s hand. Defendant looked at the radio and set it down beside him on the ground.\nJesse Holloman testified that, after defendant took the radio from Tucker, he said, \u201cIf you want the radio you got to fight for it.\u201d Defendant walked up to Holloman, saying that he looked like the toughest one, and pushed him in the chest. Holloman testified that prior to this he had not struck defendant nor said anything to the defendant. After pushing Holloman, defendant picked up the radio and left with his companion. The three boys immediately contacted the police.\nDefendant did not present any evidence.\nDefendant\u2019s motion for nonsuit was denied. The jury returned a verdict of guilty as charged on both counts and defendant was sentenced to a prison term of four years minimum, six years maximum. He appeals.\nAttorney General Edmisten, by Associate Attorney Jane P. Gray, for the State.\nHoward & Morelock, by Robert E. Howard, for defendant appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0458-01",
  "first_page_order": 486,
  "last_page_order": 488
}