State v. Williams

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

State v. Williams

196 S.E.2d 370, 18 N.C. App. 145, 1973 N.C. App. LEXIS 1802

CourtCourt of Appeals of North Carolina

DecidedMay 9, 1973

DocketNo. 737SC383

StatusPublished

This text of 196 S.E.2d 370 (State v. Williams) 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. Williams, 196 S.E.2d 370, 18 N.C. App. 145, 1973 N.C. App. LEXIS 1802 (N.C. Ct. App. 1973).

Pincite

Opinion

VAUGHN, Judge.

Defendant contends that, despite his waiver, the court should have appointed counsel to represent him at the preliminary hearing and at trial. This argument is without merit. A defendant may waive counsel. In the present case defendant’s waivers were in writing and fully support the court’s findings of record to the effect that defendant acted with full awareness of his right to counsel and the consequences of waiver thereof.

Defendant’s argument that the prison sentence of not less than eight nor more than ten years constitutes cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Constitution of North Carolina [146]*146is without merit. All of defendant’s assignments of error have been considered and we find no prejudicial error.

No error.

Judges Campbell and Morris concur.

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

VAUGHN, Judge.

Defendant contends that, despite his waiver, the court should have appointed counsel to represent him at the preliminary hearing and at trial. This argument is without merit. A defendant may waive counsel. In the present case defendant’s waivers were in writing and fully support the court’s findings of record to the effect that defendant acted with full awareness of his right to counsel and the consequences of waiver thereof.

Defendant’s argument that the prison sentence of not less than eight nor more than ten years constitutes cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Constitution of North Carolina [146]*146is without merit. All of defendant’s assignments of error have been considered and we find no prejudicial error.

No error.

Judges Campbell and Morris concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

196 S.E.2d 370, 18 N.C. App. 145, 1973 N.C. App. LEXIS 1802, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-williams-ncctapp-1973.