Public Access To Court Electronic Records

criminal case

Criminal Procedure > Sentencing > Prayer For Judgment Continued

The trial court docket erred by failing to sua sponte inquire into the defendant’s competency. The trial court also asked the defendant about her capability to learn and write and whether she understood the fees in opposition to her. However, this inquiry pertained only to effects of the ache medication. More importantly, it was not timely on condition that the defendant’s refusal to return to the courtroom and resulting outbursts occurred two days later. The court docket remanded for a dedication of whether or not a significant retrospective competency listening to might be held.

In this ordinary larceny case the place the defendant was sentenced as a recurring felon, the defendant didn’t establish that his trial counsel didn’t have authority to stipulate to the prior convictions used to raise his charge to ordinary larceny. Citing a previous decision, the courtroom explained that a defendant’s attorney might stipulate to a component of a charged crime and that an lawyer is presumed to have the authority to behave on behalf of his or her shopper throughout trial, including while stipulating to parts. The report on this case did not present that the defendant’s legal professional acted with out his authority with regard to the stipulation. The trial court didn’t err by permitting offensive collateral estoppel to ascertain the underlying felony for the defendant’s felony homicide conviction.

The trial court docket afforded the defendant a possibility to have a forensic examination carried out during trial but the defendant declined to take action. The defendant was not entitled to a presumption of prejudice on grounds that denial of the movement created made it in order that no lawyer may provide efficient assistance. The defendant’s argument that had he been given additional time, an independent examination may need proven that the casings weren’t fired by the murder weapon was inadequate to ascertain the requisite prejudice. The defendant additional argued that his attorneys should have pushed tougher for higher concessions for him.

The trial court docket entered a PJC on the burglary and declared a mistrial as to felony murder. 371 , the court held that neither collateral estoppel nor the rule prohibiting one superior courtroom choose from overruling one other applies to legal rulings in a retrial following a mistrial. It concluded that on retrial de novo, the second decide was not sure by rulings made in the course of the first trial. Moreover, it concluded, collateral estoppel applies solely to an issue of ultimate truth decided by a ultimate judgment. Here, the primary choose’s ruling concerned a question of regulation, not reality, and there was no final judgment due to the mistrial.

The defendant was charged with felony-homicide and an underlying felony of housebreaking. At the first trial the jury found the defendant guilty of burglary however held on felony murder.

Had regulation enforcement positioned the sufferer’s physique before the defendant’s disclosure, the opportunity to obtain any benefit in return for the information would have been irrevocably lost. Additionally, provided that the defendant denied causing the sufferer hurt, there was a risk that the sufferer was still alive. In the end, the court disagreed with the defendant that his attorneys acted unreasonably by concentrating on a plea agreement for all times imprisonment and avoiding the dying penalty in change for making the disclosure. With respect to issues involving successive or simultaneous representation of shoppers in associated matters, a defendant who raises no objection at trial must reveal that an precise battle of curiosity adversely affected his lawyer’s performance. Here, the trial courtroom’s unchallenged findings concluded, in part, that the defendant introduced no proof that Warmack’s illustration of the defendant was in any method influenced by his prior representation of codefendant Swain.

In his first movement to withdraw, the defendant’s subsequent lawyer said that the defendant didn’t need him as counsel and that he couldn’t successfully communicate with the defendant. In his second movement to withdraw, counsel said that the defendant had been “completely uncooperative” such that counsel “was unable to prepare any type of defense to the costs.” Further, the defendant repeatedly advised counsel that his case was not going to be tried.

Holding that the defendant willfully obstructed and delayed court docket proceedings by refusing to cooperate with his appointed attorneys and insisting that his case wouldn’t be tried; he thus forfeited his proper to counsel. The defendant’s lack of cooperation result in the withdrawal of each of his courtroom-appointed attorneys. His authentic appointed counsel was allowed to withdraw over disagreements with the defendant together with counsel’s refusal to file a movement for recusal of the trial choose on grounds that numerous judges had been in collusion to fix the trial.

Because the defendant didn’t forfeit his proper to counsel, the trial court was required, underneath G.S. The trial courtroom’s failure to take action in this case entitled the defendant to a new trial.