{ "id": 8571595, "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. EDWARD ANTHONY McFADDEN", "name_abbreviation": "State v. McFadden", "decision_date": "1977-05-10", "docket_number": "No. 57", "first_page": "609", "last_page": "617", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "292 N.C. 609" } ], "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": "26 S.E. 2d 322", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "223 N.C. 321", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8606772 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/223/0321-01" ] }, { "cite": "50 S.E. 2d 520", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "229 N.C. 497", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 12166634 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/229/0497-01" ] }, { "cite": "213 S.E. 2d 335", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "287 N.C. 37", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8560972 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/287/0037-01" ] }, { "cite": "235 F. 2d 219", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "F.2d", "case_ids": [ 3765226, 77085 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/f2d/235/0219-01" ] }, { "cite": "321 F. 2d 88", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "F.2d", "case_ids": [ 93772 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/f2d/321/0088-01" ] }, { "cite": "218 F. Supp. 228", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "F. Supp.", "case_ids": [ 74810 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/f-supp/218/0228-01" ] }, { "cite": "53 Cal. Rptr. 284", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Cal. Rptr.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "417 P. 2d 868", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "P.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "65 Cal. 2d 199", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Cal. 2d", "case_ids": [ 2326773 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/cal-2d/65/0199-01" ] }, { "cite": "282 P. 2d 971", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "P.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "132 Cal. App. 2d 593", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Cal. App. 2d", "case_ids": [ 2186941 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/cal-app-2d/132/0593-01" ] }, { "cite": "80 Cal. Rptr. 418", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Cal. Rptr.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "275 Cal. App. 2d 984", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Cal. App. 2d", "case_ids": [ 2234437 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/cal-app-2d/275/0984-01" ] }, { "cite": "124 N.W. 235", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.W.", "pin_cites": [ { "page": "236, 372" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "109 Minn. 481", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Minn.", "case_ids": [ 1715600 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "483" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/minn/109/0481-01" ] }, { "cite": "26 N.Y.S. 2d 397", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.Y.S.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "176 Misc. 39", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Misc.", "case_ids": [ 899175 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/misc/176/0039-01" ] }, { "cite": "187 N.E. 298", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.", "pin_cites": [ { "page": "299" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "262 N.Y. 410", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.Y.", "case_ids": [ 2006794 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "412" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ny/262/0410-01" ] }, { "cite": "288 F. 259", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "F.", "case_ids": [ 3615789 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/f/288/0259-01" ] }, { "cite": "53 App. D.C. 53", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "App. D.C.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "69 F. 2d 830", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "F.2d", "case_ids": [ 274004 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "831" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/f2d/69/0830-01" ] }, { "cite": "84 A.L.R. 527", "category": "reporters:specialty", "reporter": "A.L.R.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "315 U.S. 60", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 374640 ], "weight": 3, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "70" }, { "page": "464" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/315/0060-01" ] }, { "cite": "154 F. 2d 31", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "F.2d", "case_ids": [ 1143435 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/f2d/154/0031-01" ] }, { "cite": "224 S.E. 2d 174", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "290 N.C. 56", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8560150 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/290/0056-01" ] }, { "cite": "230 S.E. 2d 524", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "291 N.C. 366", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8558324 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/291/0366-01" ] }, { "cite": "287 U.S. 45", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 369864 ], "weight": 6, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/287/0045-01" ] }, { "cite": "53 S.E. 2d 294", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "230 N.C. 345", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8629973 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/230/0345-01" ] }, { "cite": "128 S.E. 2d 389", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "258 N.C. 349", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8560779 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/258/0349-01" ] }, { "cite": "134 S.E. 2d 386", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "261 N.C. 268", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "214 S.E. 2d 112", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "287 N.C. 226", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8561384 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/287/0226-01" ] }, { "cite": "158 S.E. 2d 617", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "272 N.C. 509", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8573790 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/272/0509-01" ] }, { "cite": "174 S.E. 2d 526", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "276 N.C. 690", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8563327 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/276/0690-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 864, "char_count": 19169, "ocr_confidence": 0.668, "pagerank": { "raw": 8.272246740621495e-07, "percentile": 0.9751443037798729 }, "sha256": "85c28d3b5f25844367b9ecd1eb0f64188a133e422ae561d789cff15fbcb38cec", "simhash": "1:ad35f96036096d79", "word_count": 3228 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:01:08.778506+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Justice Huskins took no part in the consideration or decision of this case." ], "parties": [ "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. EDWARD ANTHONY McFADDEN" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "BRANCH, Justice.\nThe sole question presented by this appeal is whether the trial judge erred in denying defendant\u2019s motion for a continuance. Defendant argues that the denial of his motion deprived him of his constitutional rights (1) to select counsel of his choice and (2) to have the effective assistance of counsel. We will consider these arguments in the order stated.\nIt is well established that a motion to continue is ordinarily addressed to the trial judge\u2019s sound discretion and his ruling thereon will not be disturbed except upon a showing that he abused that discretion. State v. Baldwin, 276 N.C. 690, 174 S.E. 2d 526; State v. Moses, 272 N.C. 509, 158 S.E. 2d 617. However, when a motion to continue is based on a constitutional right, the question presented is a reviewable question of law. State v. Smathers, 287 N.C. 226, 214 S.E. 2d 112; State v. Phillip, 261 N.C. 268, 134 S.E. 2d 386; State v. Lane, 258 N.C. 349, 128 S.E. 2d 389. The denial of defendant\u2019s motion in this case presents constitutional questions.\nJustice Ervin, speaking for the court in State v. Speller, 230 N.C. 345, 53 S.E. 2d 294, unequivocally declared: \u201cBoth the State and Federal Constitutions secure to every man the right to be defended in all criminal prosecutions by counsel whom he selects and retains. N. C. Const., Art. I, sec. 11; U. S. Const., Amend. XIV.\u201d The United States Supreme Court recognized this constitutional right in Powell v. Alabama, 287 U.S. 45, 77 L.Ed. 158, 53 S.Ct. 55, with this language: \u201cIt is hardly necessary to say that the right to counsel being conceded, a defendant should be afforded a fair opportunity to secure counsel of his own choice.\u201d We note parenthetically that this constitutional right does not guarantee to an indigent defendant that the court must appoint counsel of his choice. State v. Sweezy, 291 N.C. 366, 230 S.E. 2d 524; State v. Robinson, 290 N.C. 56, 224 S.E. 2d 174.\nThe holding in United States v. Bergamo, 154 F. 2d 31, is consistent with Speller and Powell. There a judge in the Middle District of Pennsylvania refused to permit counsel who was licensed in New Jersey to represent defendants charged with the crime of possessing counterfeit gas and sugar stamps. Upon this ruling associate counsel, a member of the Pennsylvania bar, moved for a continuance on the ground that he was not familiar with the case. The motion to continue was denied. Granting a new trial, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals stated:\nThe Sixth Amendment provides inter alia that \u201cIn all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right * * * to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.\u201d The Supreme Court has held that right to the assistance of counsel includes the right to counsel of the defendant\u2019s choosing. In Glasser v. United States, 315 U.S. 60, 70 [62 S.Ct. 457, 464, 86 L.Ed. 680], Mr. Justice Murphy citing Powell v. Alabama, 287 U.S. 45 [53 S.Ct. 55, 77 L.Ed. 158, 84 A.L.R. 527], stated that \u201c * * * the right to the assistance of counsel is so fundamental that the denial by a state court of a reasonable time to allow the selection of counsel of one\u2019s own choosing, and the failure of that court to make an effective appointment of counsel, may so offend our concept of the basic requirements of a fair hearing as to amount to a denial of due process of law contrary to the Fourteenth Amendment * * * .\u201d Cf. In re Mandell, 2 Cir., 69 F. 2d 830, 831, and Smith v. United States, 53 App. D.C. 53, 288 F. 259. In People v. Price, 262 N.Y. 410, 412, 187 N.E. 298, 299, the Court of Appeals of New York stated, \u201cUnder both our Federal and State Constitutions, a defendant has the right to defend in person or by counsel of his own choosing,\u201d citing inter alia the Sixth Amendment. See also Burnham v. Brush, 176 Misc. 39, 26 N.Y.S. 2d 397, 399 and Kerling v. G. W. Van Dusen & Co., 109 Minn. 481, 483, 124 N.W. 235, 236, 372. The decisions are in accord upon this fundamental proposition.\nThe case of People v. Brady, 275 Cal. App. 2d 984, 80 Cal. Rptr. 418, recognizes that the right to be defended by chosen counsel is not absolute. The defendant in that case was convicted of grand theft. On the night preceding the date set for trial defendant decided to replace his retained counsel because he thought he would fare better with a local, white attorney. His motion for a continuance to secure new counsel was denied. The California Court of Appeals held that, in light of defendant\u2019s own inexcusable delay, the refusal of his motion for continuance did not violate due process. We quote from that opinion:\n. . . Due process is not denied every defendant who is refused the right to defend himself by means of his chosen retained counsel; other factors, including the speedy disposition of criminal charges, demand recognition, particularly where defendant is inexcusably dilatory in securing legal representation. . . .\nAccord: People v. Simeone, 132 Cal. App. 2d 593, 282 P. 2d 971.\nIn People v. Crovedi, 65 Cal. 2d 199, 417 P. 2d 868, 53 Cal. Rptr. 284, defendant was prosecuted for conspiracy to commit grand theft, grand theft and burglary. He retained as his counsel a Mr. Chain, who represented defendant through the fourth day of the trial, at which time he suffered a heart attack and was hospitalized. Three days prior to the date set for the resumption of the trial, the court informed Mr. Younger, a law partner of Mr. Chain, that he was appointed to represent defendant for the remainder of the trial. A one-week continuance was granted during which time defendant unsuccessfully attempted to retain counsel of his own choice. The court ordered the trial to continue with Mr. Younger representing the defendant. The jury returned verdicts of guilty and defendant appealed. The Supreme Court of California, holding this to be a denial of due process of law, stated:\n. . . [T] hough it is clear that a defendant has no absolute right to be represented by a particular attorney, still the .courts should make all reasonable efforts to ensure that a defendant financially able to retain an attorney of his own choosing can be represented by that attorney. . . . This is especially so when defendant is in no way responsible for the absence of his retained counsel. . . .\n. . . [T]he state should keep to a necessary minimum its interference with the individual\u2019s desire to defend himself in whatever manner he deems best, using any legitimate means within his resources \u2014 and that desire can constitutionally be forced to yield only when it will result in significant prejudice to the defendant or in a disruption of the orderly processes of justice unreasonable under the circumstances of the particular case.\nWe note the case of Gomez v. Heard, 218 F. Supp. 228, aff\u2019d. 321 F. 2d 88, because of its factual likeness to the case sub judice. In that case defendant was charged with receiving and concealing stolen property. He employed an attorney, Mr. Bernard Golding, to defend him. When the case was called for trial, defendant appeared without counsel and moved for a continuance. His motion was supported by an affidavit signed by attorney Golding stating that Golding was at that time engaged in the trial of a case in another state and praying that the case be continued until such reasonable time as the attorney could appear. The trial judge denied the motion for a continuance, appointed another attorney to represent defendant and proceeded, over defendant\u2019s objections, to try the case. The District Court for the Southern District of Texas held in a habeas corpus proceeding that defendant \u201cwas denied the right of assistance of counsel of his own choice and that such was a denial of due process of law.\u201d\nIn our opinion Lee v. United States, 235 F. 2d 219, clearly states the rule that should be adopted and applied to the facts of the case before us. There the defendant was convicted of assault with a dangerous weapon and assault with intent to kill. He employed two attorneys, Mr. Koonin and Mr. Smith, to represent him. After several continuances the case was set for trial on June 17, 1955, a Friday. That morning attorneys Koonin and Smith obtained the court\u2019s permission to withdraw from the case. Defendant advised the court that he had retained another attorney, Mr. Hughes, who was prepared to try the case. When the case was called, Mr. Hughes informed the trial judge that he had previously represented the government\u2019s chief witness. Because of a possible conflict of interest, Mr. Hughes was allowed to withdraw from the case. The trial judge thereupon appointed Mr. Koonin', who had withdrawn earlier, to defend the case. The judge denied defendant\u2019s request to employ counsel of his choice and refused to continue the case until Monday. Defendant appealed and the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, holding this to be error, declared:\n... It is a fundamental principle that an accused be permitted to choose his own counsel, the practice of assigning counsel being reserved for cases where the accused cannot or does not select his own. . . .\n. . . [T]he accused\u2019s \u201cright to select his own counsel cannot be insisted upon in a manner that will obstruct an orderly procedure in courts of justice, and deprive such courts of the exercise of their inherent powers to control the same.\u201d But appellant bore no responsibilitiy for being without counsel on the eve of his trial. He had appeared for trial with counsel of his own choosing, and the record does not show that he had anything to do with that counsel\u2019s withdrawal by leave of court. However that withdrawal may have obstructed the processes of the court, such obstruction is clearly not chargeable to the appellant and cannot be made the occasion for denying him his constitutional right to counsel of his own choosing. Assuming the trial court has discretion in the matter of how much opportunity is to be afforded the accused for selecting counsel, we think it would abuse that discretion by refusing to continue the trial over a weekend for that purpose unless it clearly appeared that the accused would not find counsel of his own choosing. . . .\nIn instant case defendant timely exercised his right to select counsel of his choice long before the case was called for trial. The record does not disclose that he had in any way contributed to his counsel\u2019s absence. The fact that his counsel had accepted other employment which prevented his presence at the trial cannot be charged to defendant so as to deny him his constitutional right to counsel of his own choice. We find nothing in this record that indicates that defendant exercised his right to select counsel of his choice in a manner calculated to disrupt or obstruct the orderly progress of the court.\nThe effect of the denial of the defendant\u2019s constitutional right to be represented by counsel of his choice is so interrelated with his right to effective assistance of counsel that we deem it proper to consider the latter of defendant\u2019s two-pronged argument.\nIt is implicit in the constitutional guarantees of assistance of counsel and confrontation of one\u2019s accusers and witnesses against him that an accused and his counsel shall have a reasonable time to investigate, prepare and present his defense. However, no set length of time is guaranteed and whether defendant is denied due process must be determined under the circumstances of each case. State v. Vick, 287 N.C. 37, 213 S.E. 2d 335; State v. Phillip, supra; State v. Speller, supra; State v. Gibson, 229 N.C. 497, 50 S.E. 2d 520; State v. Farrell, 223 N.C. 321, 26 S.E. 2d 322. In instant case defendant, who was charged with a felony, met and talked with Mr. Parrish for the first time about ninety minutes before the case was called for trial. Mr. Parrish had practiced law for eighteen months and had previously tried only one jury case. He knew nothing about this case until he arrived in court. All of the preliminary hearings and preparations for trial had been handled exclusively by Mr. Powell. Defendant indicated to Mr. Parrish on the day of the trial that he wanted his retained counsel to represent him. Under these circumstances defendant was denied effective assistance of counsel because he and Mr. Parrish did not have a reasonable time in which to prepare and present a defense.\nWe wish to make it abundantly clear that we do not approve of tactics by counsel or client which tend to delay the trial of cases. Our clogged court dockets and the tortoise-like progress of cases through our courts have caused criticism of, and disrespect for, the entire court system. The public is demanding and the legal profession should be searching for means to expedite the trial of criminal and civil cases without depriving litigants of a fair trial. The judiciary possesses powers to regulate and discipline attorneys who deliberately or negligently impede the progress of our courts. Likewise an accused may lose his constitutional right to be represented by counsel of his choice when he perverts that right to a weapon for the purpose of obstructing and delaying his trial. It might well be said that defendant\u2019s chosen counsel acted improvidently in that he did not consult the trial judge concerning a continuance, or in that, being associated with a reputable firm of able lawyers, he did not take steps to prepare one of them for the trial of the case and consult defendant as to the possibility that his associate might proceed with the trial in the event that a continuance was not obtained. However, any fault of counsel without defendant\u2019s concurrence cannot be imputed to defendant so as to preclude him from obtaining counsel of his choice.\nWe hold that under the circumstances of this case, the trial court erred by denying defendant\u2019s motion for a continuance, thereby depriving him of a reasonable time in which to obtain counsel of his choice.\nThis cause is remanded to the Court of Appeals with direction that it be remanded to the Superior Court of Forsyth County for trial in accordance with this opinion.\nReversed and remanded.\nJustice Huskins took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.", "type": "majority", "author": "BRANCH, Justice." } ], "attorneys": [ "Attorney General Edmisten by Associate Attorney Wilton E. Ragland, Jr. and Associate Attorney Jane Rankin Thompson, for the State.", "White & Grumpier by Harrell Powell, Jr. and Carl F. Parrish, for defendant." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. EDWARD ANTHONY McFADDEN\nNo. 57\n(Filed 10 May 1977)\n1. Criminal Law \u00a7 91.1\u2014 motion for continuance \u2014 constitutional right \u2014 appellate review\nA motion to continue is ordinarily addressed to the trial judge\u2019s sound discretion and his ruling thereon will not be disturbed except upon a showing that he abused that discretion; however, when the motion is based on a constitutional right, the question presented is a reviewable question of law.\n2. Criminal Law \u00a7 91.4; Constitutional Law \u00a7 40\u2014 right to counsel of own choice \u2014 denial of continuance \u2014 retained counsel in another court \u2014 trial by associate\nThe denial of defendant\u2019s motion for continuance violated defendant\u2019s constitutional right to counsel of his own choice where defendant had retained counsel to represent him; on the day of trial a junior associate of retained counsel moved for a continuance because retained counsel was engaged in a trial in a federal court; the associate stated that he knew nothing about the case, that retained counsel was the only one prepared to try it, and that defendant wanted his retained counsel to represent him; and the court ordered that the trial proceed and that associate counsel represent defendant.\n3. Criminal Law \u00a7 91.4; Constitutional Law \u00a7 48\u2014 effective assistance of counsel \u2014 denial of continuance \u2014 retained counsel in another court \u2014 trial by associate\nThe denial of defendant\u2019s motion for continuance violated his constitutional right to the effective assistance of counsel because counsel who represented him at trial did not have a reasonable time to prepare and present a defense where a junior associate of defendant\u2019s retained counsel moved for a continuance because the retained counsel was engaged in a trial in a federal court; the trial court ordered that the trial proceed with associate counsel representing defendant; all of the preliminary hearings and preparations for trial had been handled exclusively by retained counsel; the associate met and talked with defendant for the first time about ninety minutes before the case was called for trial; the associate had practiced law for eighteen months and had previously tried only one jury case; and defendant indicated that he wanted his retained counsel to represent him.\nJustice Huskins took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.\nAppeal by defendant from Rousseau, J., 5 January 1976 Criminal Session of Forsyth Superior Court.\nDefendant was charged in a bill of indictment with the felonious sale and delivery of cocaine. He employed Mr. Harrell Powell, Jr., to represent him. The case was set and called for trial on 21 January 1976. On that date Mr. Carl Parrish, one of Mr. Powell\u2019s junior associates, appeared in court and informed Judge Rousseau that Mr. Powell was engaged in a trial in the United States District Court for the Middle District. He stated that Mr. Powell, who had handled the case from its inception, was the only person prepared to try the case; that he knew nothing about the case and did not even know what type of drug was involved. He further stated that defendant indicated to him that morning that he wanted his retained counsel, Mr. Powell, to represent him in the case. For these reasons Mr. Parrish requested that the case be continued or held open for trial in the event that Mr. Powell should become available.\nThe record discloses that Mr. Powell had been employed for a period of about five months and that the offense had allegedly occurred on 21 February 1975. Mr. Powell had obtained one previous continuance because of incomplete fee arrangements with his client. On Friday of the previous week, Mr. Powell had asked the District Attorney to continue the case because of his pending case in the United States District Court. The District Attorney advised Mr. Powell that he had subpoenaed his witnesses and that he intended to try the case. He further told Mr. Powell that if he wanted a continuance he would have to get it from the court. In response to the court\u2019s inquiry, Mr. Parrish said there were seven other lawyers associated with Mr. Powell.\nAfter hearing Mr. Parrish'and the District Attorney, Judge Rousseau ordered that the trial proceed and directed Mr. Parrish to represent defendant. The jury returned a verdict of guilty as charged and the trial judge entered judgment imposing a prison sentence of seven to ten years.\nDefendant appealed and the Court of Appeals found no error.\nDefendant appealed pursuant to G.S. 7A-30(1) and also petitioned this Court for discretionary review pursuant to G.S. 7A-31. The Attorney General moved to dismiss the appeal on the ground that no substantial constitutional question was presented. On 31 January 1977, we denied the Attorney General\u2019s motion to dismiss and allowed defendant\u2019s petition for discretionary review.\nAttorney General Edmisten by Associate Attorney Wilton E. Ragland, Jr. and Associate Attorney Jane Rankin Thompson, for the State.\nWhite & Grumpier by Harrell Powell, Jr. and Carl F. Parrish, for defendant." }, "file_name": "0609-01", "first_page_order": 629, "last_page_order": 637 }