GUILFORD COUNTY 97CRS - 39580
MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL
THE COURT OF
APPEALS SLIP OPINION WAS FILED 3, OCTOBER 2000 WITH A FINDING OF NO
ERROR. THE DEFENDANT'S ATTORNEYS OF RECORD THROUGHOUT ALL
PROCEEDINGS WERE JOHN B. HATFIELD, JR. AND W. DAVID LLOYD. AFTER
DEFENDANT'S CONVICTION HE WAS COMMITTED TO THE NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND IS PRESENTLY ASSIGNED TO PASQUOTANK
REASON WHY COUNSEL SHOULD BE APPOINTED
4. THE LAW
IS CLEAR ON BOTH THE ENTITLEMENT AND SCOPE:
PURSUANT TO NCGS 7A - 450. (B WHENEVER A PERSON, UNDER THE STANDARDS AND PROCEDURES SET OUT IN THIS SUBCHAPTER, IS DETERMINED TO BE AN INDIGENT PERSON ENTITLED TO COUNSEL, IT IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE STATE TO PROVIDE HIM WITH COUNSEL AND THE OTHER NECESSARY EXPENSES OF REPRESENTATION. THE PROFESSIONAL RELATIONSHIP OF COUNSEL SO PROVIDED TO THE INDIGENT PERSON HE REPRESENTS IS THE SAME AS IF COUNSEL HAD BEEN PRIVATELY RETAINED BY THE INDIGENT PERSON. AND PURSUANT TO NCGS §7A - 451. SCOPE OF ENTITLEMENT. (A) AN INDIGENT PERSON IS ENTITLED TO SERVICES OF COUNSEL IN THE. FOLLOWING ACTIONS AND PROCEEDINGS: (1) ANY CASE IN WHICH IMPRISONMENT, OR FINE OF FIVE HUNDRED DOLLARS ($500.00), OR MORE, IS LIKELY TO BE ADJUDGED; (B) IN EACH OF THE ACTIONS AND PROCEEDINGS ENUMERATED IN SUBSECTION (A) OF THIS SECTION, ENTITLEMENT TO SERVICES OF COUNSEL BEGINS AS SOON AS FEASIBLE AFTER THE INDIGENT IS TAKEN INTO CUSTODY OR SERVICE IS MADE UPON HIM OF THE CHARGE, PETITION, NOTICE OR OTHER INITIATING PROCESS. ENTITLEMENT CONTINUES THROUGH ANY CRITICAL STAGE OF ACTION OR PROCEEDING, INCLUDING, IF APPLICABLE: (C) REVIEW OF ANY JUDGMENT OR DEGREE PURSUANT TO G.5. 7A - 27, 7A - 30. (1) , 7A 30 (2), AND SUBCHAPTER XIV OF CHAPTER IS A OF THE GENERAL STATUTES.
5. THE DEFENDANT INTENDS TO FILE NOTICE OF APPEAL TO THE SUPREME COURT OF NORTH CAROLINA PURSUANT TO NCGS 7A - 30. ( I) AND RULE 14, N.C.R. APP.P..
FELONIES IN ALL COURTS
October 17, 2000
Odom Corr. Rt. 1 Box 36
Enclosed is a copy
of the opinion in your case. As you probably already know, we lost.
I have considered the opinion at length and have talked to other
lawyers including Jack. I simply see no realistic basis for hope of
a reversal in the N. C. Supreme Court. Therefore, Jack and I decline
to seek certiorari or discretionary review in your case. If you send
your father over, I will be glad to turn over your file to him. You
have 35 days from the date of the opinion, October 3, 2000 to seek
discretionary review. You would need to file with our Supreme Court
in order to exhaust state remedies to preserve any federal habeas
options. I wish you well.
I am and remain,
W. David Lloyd
envelope (see PDF)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
MIKE EASLEY, ATTORNEY GENERAL
N.C. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
15TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2000
Published August 15, 2006. Report broken links or other problems.
© PWC Consulting. Visit our website at www.preventwrongfulconvictions.org for information on our Mission and Services, and to sign up for our Newsletter.