{
  "id": 2499746,
  "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. JAMES EDWARD THOMAS",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Thomas",
  "decision_date": "1990-10-03",
  "docket_number": "No. 455A87",
  "first_page": "630",
  "last_page": "631",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "327 N.C. 630"
    }
  ],
  "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": "329 S.E.2d 404",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1985,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "313 N.C. 505",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        4722307
      ],
      "year": 1985,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/313/0505-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "354 S.E.2d 724",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1987,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "319 N.C. 399",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        4739511
      ],
      "year": 1987,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/319/0399-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "337 S.E.2d 504",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1985,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "507"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "315 N.C. 175",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        4716847
      ],
      "year": 1985,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/315/0175-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 272,
    "char_count": 4014,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.742,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.9028784673284916e-07,
      "percentile": 0.7305138253234069
    },
    "sha256": "cb426364895c33ac3bf36e9979520e2ddd67474c27b43e8ffea4435fe94caab2",
    "simhash": "1:2771d878ffbd0d7f",
    "word_count": 657
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:39:47.348264+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "WHICHARD, J."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. JAMES EDWARD THOMAS"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "ORDER\nThis case was heard 11 May 1989 on defendant\u2019s appeal from judgments imposing a sentence of death for first degree murder and a mandatory sentence of life imprisonment for first degree sexual offense, entered at the 6 July 1987 criminal session of Superior Court, WAKE County, Farmer, J\u201e presiding.\nOne issue raised on appeal is whether certain concessions by defendant\u2019s attorney of defendant\u2019s guilt before the trial jury denied defendant the effective assistance of counsel.\nDefendant was indicted on charges of first degree murder, first degree sexual offense, and robbery of Teresa Ann West, who was found dead in her room at the Sir Walter Tourist Home on 14 June 1986. Physical evidence introduced by the State at defendant's trial linked defendant to the murder. The jury found defendant guilty of first degree murder both by premeditation and deliberation and under the felony murder rule, and guilty of first degree sexual offense. The jury found defendant not guilty of common law robbery and not guilty of larceny. After a sentencing hearing, the jury recommended the death penalty for the first degree murder.\nDuring arguments to the jury, defendant\u2019s counsel, apparently as a matter of trial strategy, conceded that defendant was guilty of second degree murder and that defendant participated in the sexual offense. Trial counsel stated to the trial court that defendant had consented to this strategy, at least as to the murder charge. Defendant on appeal denies he consented.\nIn State v. Harbison, 315 N.C. 175, 337 S.E.2d 504 (1985), we held that ineffective assistance of counsel, in violation of a defendant\u2019s sixth amendment right to counsel, is established in every criminal case in which the defendant\u2019s counsel admits defendant\u2019s guilt of a lesser included crime to the jury without defendant\u2019s consent. The Court\u2019s opinion explained the basis for this rule:\nWhen counsel admits his client\u2019s guilt without first obtaining the client\u2019s consent, the client\u2019s rights to a fair trial are completely swept away. The practical effect is the same as if counsel had entered a plea of guilty without the client\u2019s consent. Counsel in such situations denies the client\u2019s right to have the issue of guilt or innocence decided by a jury.\nId. at 180, 337 S.E.2d at 507.\nThe defendant in Harbison, appealing the trial court\u2019s denial of a motion for appropriate relief, contended that his right to effective assistance of counsel was violated when defense counsel, without his consent, admitted defendant\u2019s guilt and recommended that jurors convict him of manslaughter, rather than convict him of first degree murder or find him not guilty. The State did not contest the defendant\u2019s assertion that he had not consented to his attorney\u2019s admission.\nUnlike in Harbison, the State here contests defendant\u2019s assertion of fact that he did not consent to his attorney\u2019s admissions. The trial record does not resolve this issue. Before determination, therefore, of this and other issues in the case it is ORDERED, in the exercise of the Court\u2019s supervisory powers over the trial divisions, that the case be remanded to the Superior Court, Wake County, for an evidentiary hearing for the sole purpose of determining whether defendant knowingly consented to trial counsel\u2019s concessions of defendant\u2019s guilt to the jury. The trial court then shall forthwith make findings of fact and conclusions of law, upon which it shall enter its order. It shall then certify the order together with supporting findings and conclusions and the transcript of the hearing to this Court. See State v. Sanders, 319 N.C. 399, 354 S.E.2d 724 (1987); State v. Richardson, 313 N.C. 505, 329 S.E.2d 404 (1985).\nBy order of the Court in conference, this 3rd day of October 1990.\nWHICHARD, J.\nFor the Court\nWITNESS my hand and seal of the Supreme Court of North Carolina, this the 10th day of October, 1990.\nJ. Gregory Wallace\nClerk of the Supreme Court",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": null
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. JAMES EDWARD THOMAS\nNo. 455A87\n(Filed 3 October 1990)"
  },
  "file_name": "0630-01",
  "first_page_order": 668,
  "last_page_order": 669
}