{ "id": 8566140, "name": "STATE v. J. B. MILLER", "name_abbreviation": "State v. Miller", "decision_date": "1967-10-18", "docket_number": "", "first_page": "611", "last_page": "613", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "271 N.C. 611" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "N.C.", "id": 9292, "name": "Supreme Court of North Carolina" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 5, "name_long": "North Carolina", "name": "N.C." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "150 S.E. 2d 507", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "268 N.C. 362", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8562132 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/268/0362-01" ] }, { "cite": "153 S.E. 2d 34", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "pin_cites": [ { "page": "36" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "269 N.C. 521", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8564570 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "524" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/269/0521-01" ] }, { "cite": "156 S.E. 2d 740", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "271 N.C. 323", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8563824 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/271/0323-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 336, "char_count": 5681, "ocr_confidence": 0.596, "pagerank": { "raw": 1.2323290648534255e-07, "percentile": 0.6059594594124985 }, "sha256": "be1130b7039826bd9d95e19eaead4f88afa6344da383b54157d62ad1e426177b", "simhash": "1:03993d2415ee9803", "word_count": 917 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:46:10.850261+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "STATE v. J. B. MILLER." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Per Curiam.\nDefendant was arrested May 9, 1967, on six warrants issued by the District Court of Caldwell County. These warrants charged the felonies subsequently charged in the said indictments. After preliminary hearing on May 12, 1967, the district court found probable cause and ordered defendant to appear at said May 1967 Criminal Session of Caldwell Superior Court. Mr. Beck was appointed counsel on May 15, 1967. The pleas of guilty were tendered and accepted on May 16, 1967.\nAlthough no exceptions were noted during the proceedings in the superior court, assignments of error entered on behalf of defendant by his court-appointed counsel in connection with the appeal are as follows: (1) The failure of the District Court of Caldwell County to appoint counsel for defendant at his preliminary hearing when defendant stood charged with six felony\u2019offenses; (2) the acceptance of defendant\u2019s pleas of guilty the day following the court\u2019s appointment of counsel to represent him; and (3) the acceptance of defendant\u2019s pleas of guilty without hearing evidence from any of the persons listed as witnesses against defendant.\nNothing in the record shows defendant was in any way prejudiced by the fact that he was not represented by counsel at his preliminary hearing. In the present factual situation, the preliminary hearing \u201cwas not such a \u2018critical stage\u2019 of the proceeding as to require the presence of counsel,\u201d and the failure to supply counsel for such preliminary hearing was not \u201ca deprivation of any constitutional right of appellant.\u201d See Gasque v. State, 271 N.C. 323, 156 S.E. 2d 740.\nNothing in the record indicates defendant or his counsel requested or desired a continuance of the case. On the contrary, the record shows affirmatively that the pleas of guilty were entered freely, understanding^ and voluntarily.\nIt does not appear affirmatively whether, after tender and acceptance of defendant\u2019s pleas of guilty, the court heard testimony of persons listed as State\u2019s witnesses. Proof of the charges in the second counts of the six bills of indictment was rendered unnecessary by defendant\u2019s pleas of guilty thereto. State v. Caldwell, 269 N.C. 521, 524, 153 S.E. 2d 34, 36; State v. Dye, 268 N.C. 362, 150 S.E. 2d 507; 21 Am. Jur. 2d, Criminal Law \u00a7 495 ; 22 C.J.S., Criminal Law \u00a7 424(4).\nIt is noteworthy that the active (concurrent) sentences imposed were within the permissible punishment provided in G.S. 14-120 based on defendant\u2019s plea of guilty in respect of any one of the six indictments.\nNo error having been shown, the judgments of the court below are affirmed.\nAffirmed.", "type": "majority", "author": "Per Curiam." } ], "attorneys": [ "Attorney General Bruton and Assistant Attorney General Good-wyn for the State.", "Paul L. Beck for defendant appellant." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "STATE v. J. B. MILLER.\n(Filed 18 October, 1967.)\n1. Constitutional Law \u00a7 32; Criminal Law \u00a7 21\u2014\nIt is not required that defendant be represented by counsel upon the preliminary bearing.\n2. Criminal Law \u00a7 23\u2014\nThe acceptance of a plea of guilty.on the day after the appointment of counsel for the indigent defendant will not be held for error when there is no request for continuance and the interrogation of the court discloses that defendant entered the plea freely, understandingly, and voluntarily, without compulsion or duress or promise of leniency.\n3. Same\u2014\nTender and acceptance of defendant\u2019s pleas of guilty upon particular charges renders unnecessary proof of defendant's guilt thereof.\n4. Criminal Law \u00a7 171\u2014\n\"Where defendant validly pleads guilty to one count and the sentence therefor is within the statutory maximum and is made to run concurrently with the sentence on the other counts, any error relating to the other counts cannot be prejudicial.\nAppeal by defendant. from Campbell, J., May 1967 Criminal Session of Caldwell.\nAt said May 1967 Criminal Session, the grand jury returned as true bills six two-count indictments, each indictment charging defendant with two felonies, namely, (1) the forgery of a described check, a violation of G.S. 14-119, and (2) the uttering of said check with intent to defraud, a violation of G.S. 14-120. The court, based on defendant\u2019s affidavit of indigency, appointed Paul Beck, Esq., to represent defendant. in these criminal actions. Defendant, through his said counsel, tendered pleas of guilty to the second count in each of the six indictments, namely, the uttering of a forged instrument, to wit, the check described therein, with intent to defraud. After careful inquiry, and in accordance with defendant\u2019s oral and written statements, the court determined and adjudged that defendant\u2019s pleas were entered freely, understandingly and voluntarily, without undue influence, compulsion or duress, and without promise of leniency. Thereupon defendant\u2019s said pleas of guilty were accepted.\nIn the case identified by Criminal Docket No. 2183, judgment imposing a prison sentence of not less than five nor more than seven years was pronounced:\nIn the case identified by Criminal Docket No. 2184, judgment imposing a prison -sentence of hot less than\u2019 five nor\" more than seven years was pronounced. It was provided that the sentences imposed in No. 2183 and in No. 2184 \u201crun concurrently and at the same time.\u201d\nIn the four cases identified by Criminal Docket No. 2211, Criminal Docket No. 2212, Criminal Docket No. 2213, and Criminal Docket No. 2125, prayer for judgment was continued \u201cfor a period of 5 years upon the condition defendant remains of good behavior, (and) not violate any of the laws of the State or anywhere else.\u201d\nDefendant excepted to the foregoing judgments and appealed. Orders were entered enabling defendant, as an indigent, to perfect his appeal at the expense of Caldwell County.\nAttorney General Bruton and Assistant Attorney General Good-wyn for the State.\nPaul L. Beck for defendant appellant." }, "file_name": "0611-01", "first_page_order": 645, "last_page_order": 647 }