State v. Grier

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

State v. Grier

209 S.E.2d 392, 23 N.C. App. 548, 1974 N.C. App. LEXIS 2150

CourtCourt of Appeals of North Carolina

DecidedNovember 6, 1974

DocketNo. 7426SC680

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 209 S.E.2d 392 (State v. Grier) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of North Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State v. Grier, 209 S.E.2d 392, 23 N.C. App. 548, 1974 N.C. App. LEXIS 2150 (N.C. Ct. App. 1974).

Pincite

Opinion

VAUGHN, Judge.

Defendant assigns as error that her motion for continuance was denied and that she was denied counsel at public expense. She does not contend that the judge abused his discretion when he denied the motion for continuance. Instead, it is argued that, as a matter of law, the motion should have been granted because the effect of denial was to deprive her of her constitutional right to counsel and that she need not show other prejudice. We cannot sustain this argument. There was ample time between indictment and trial for defendant to retain counsel and prepare her defense. The judge’s findings on the question of defendant’s indigency are supported by the evidence. Defendant’s argument that she has been denied the right to counsel because of the absence of definite standards for determining indigency must also be rejected.

No error.

Judges Campbell and Britt concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

VAUGHN, Judge.

Defendant assigns as error that her motion for continuance was denied and that she was denied counsel at public expense. She does not contend that the judge abused his discretion when he denied the motion for continuance. Instead, it is argued that, as a matter of law, the motion should have been granted because the effect of denial was to deprive her of her constitutional right to counsel and that she need not show other prejudice. We cannot sustain this argument. There was ample time between indictment and trial for defendant to retain counsel and prepare her defense. The judge’s findings on the question of defendant’s indigency are supported by the evidence. Defendant’s argument that she has been denied the right to counsel because of the absence of definite standards for determining indigency must also be rejected.

No error.

Judges Campbell and Britt concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

209 S.E.2d 392, 23 N.C. App. 548, 1974 N.C. App. LEXIS 2150, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-grier-ncctapp-1974.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack