{
  "id": 8559658,
  "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. GRADY DELANEY WINFORD",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Winford",
  "decision_date": "1971-02-03",
  "docket_number": "No. 59",
  "first_page": "67",
  "last_page": "69",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "278 N.C. 67"
    }
  ],
  "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": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 268,
    "char_count": 4153,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.538,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.46765605076141e-08,
      "percentile": 0.2802145993839795
    },
    "sha256": "a170215d4e018e4120c5e48d5b1620e6fb8ccdbd5ea18c8c2871b5f583078759",
    "simhash": "1:eb1dacb35dc4ace3",
    "word_count": 714
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:07:15.509345+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. GRADY DELANEY WINFORD"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Per Curiam.\nAt the 25 May 1970 Session of Iredell, Seay, /., presiding, defendant was convicted of murder in the second degree. From a prison sentence of not less than 25 nor more than 30 years he gave notice of appeal. He was allowed 60 days in which to prepare and serve his case on appeal, and the State was allowed 20 days thereafter to prepare and serve countercase. In apt time defendant\u2019s counsel requested Ms. Sandra H. Shoup, the court reporter for that session, to furnish him a transcript of the trial proceedings. She agreed to do so but thereafter moved to the State of Maryland without having delivered it. Because of her failure to deliver the transcript Judge Seay twice extended defendant\u2019s time for serving case on appeal, the last time until 14 November 1970.\nOn 22 October 1970 defendant filed a motion for a new trial on the ground that he had been unable to secure the stenographic record of his trial; that the time for docketing his appeal in the Court of Appeals expired on 25 October 1970; and that, without the transcript, his counsel could not properly prepare his case on appeal. The motion was supported by an affidavit of his counsel, T. C. Homesley, Jr., who detailed the failure of his \u201ccontinuous and repeated efforts,\u201d made by both mail and telephone, to get the transcript from Ms. Shoup. He asserted his belief that she either could not or would not produce it.\nJudge Robert M. Martin heard defendant\u2019s motion and denied it on 22 October 1970. In the record is a stipulation, signed by Solicitor Zeb A. Morris and Mr. Homesley, that due to the failure of the court reporter to provide a transcript neither defendant\u2019s attorneys nor the solicitor could competently set forth the trial proceedings.\nOn 26 October 1970 defendant docketed in the Court of Appeals the record proper, the motions and orders extending the time for serving case on appeal, the motion for a new trial with the supporting affidavit and stipulation, and the court\u2019s order denying the motion. He made three assignments of error, all of which were directed to the court\u2019s refusal to grant defendant a new trial because of the court reporter\u2019s failure to provide a transcript.\nThe case was argued in this Court on 9 December 1970 on the sole question whether defendant was entitled to a new trial because of the court reporter\u2019s failure to deliver the transcript. Thereafter further efforts to secure the transcript were made at the instance of this Court. The transcript has now been delivered.\nIt Is Therefore Ordered that this case be and the same is hereby remanded to the Superior Court of Iredell County to the end that defendant may, if so advised, proceed to perfect his appeal. Defendant is allowed through March 6th to make up and serve his case on appeal. The State is allowed 20 days after service of the case upon the solicitor in which to file exceptions or countercase. Defendant will file his case on appeal and his assignments of error in this Court on or before 13 April 1971, and the case will be set for argument in regular course at the May Session, 1971.\nRemanded.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Per Curiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Robert Morgan, Attorney General; William F. Briley, Assistant Attorney General; and Claude W. Harris, Assistant Attorney General for the State.",
      "Collier, Harris & Homesley by Richard M. Pecurman, Jr., and Walter H. Jones, Jr., for defendant appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. GRADY DELANEY WINFORD\nNo. 59\n(Filed 3 February 1971)\nCriminal Law \u00a7\u00a7 154, 177\u2014 case on appeal \u2014 inability to obtain trial transcript from reporter \u2014 remand to superior court\nOn defendant\u2019s appeal from the refusal of a superior court judge to grant defendant a new trial because of the court reporter\u2019s failure to provide a trial transcript for preparation of the case on appeal, the Supreme Court remanded the appeal to the superior court so that defendant might proceed to perfect his appeal, since the trial transcript had been delivered to defendant subsequent to the present appeal.\nThis Appeal was transferred for initial appellate review by the Supreme Court by an order entered pursuant to G.S. 7A-31 (b) (4). It was docketed and argued as Case No. 97 at the Fall Term 1970.\nRobert Morgan, Attorney General; William F. Briley, Assistant Attorney General; and Claude W. Harris, Assistant Attorney General for the State.\nCollier, Harris & Homesley by Richard M. Pecurman, Jr., and Walter H. Jones, Jr., for defendant appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0067-01",
  "first_page_order": 87,
  "last_page_order": 89
}