Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

272 N.C. 97

157 S.E.2d 606

State v. Morgan

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided November 22, 1967

Supreme Court of North Carolina · decided 1967-11-22

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“"Having been fully advised by the court that an attorney would be appointed to represent him if he so desired, he [the defendant] had the right to reject the offer of such appointment and to represent himself in the trial and disposition of his case."”

quoted by 2 later decisions, including State v. Mems, State v. Bass

Relies on State v. McNeil · State v. Elliott · State v. Mallory

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1967-11-22

How this case has been cited

Cited by 24 later decisions — most recently March 2007

24 state decisions

12019671970198019902000decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

PER CuRiam.

¶1 The appeal to this Court is, itself, an exception to the entry of the judgment in the superior court and assigns such judgment as error. Such assignment presents for the consideration of this Court the sole question of whether error appears upon the face of the record proper, including the regularity of the judgment so entered. State v. Mallory, 266 N.C. 31, 145 S.E. 2d 335; State v. Elliott, 269 N.C. 683, 153 S.E. 2d 330. No error appears upon the face of the record in this case. The indictment is proper in form and sufficiently alleges the offense of escape while serving a sentence for conviction of a felony. The sentence imposed is within the limits fixed by G.S. 148-45 (a) for this offense. The judgment was regular in form. There is ample evidence to support the finding of the court that the plea of guilty was entered voluntarily and understandingly. The defendant does not contend otherwise. Having been fully advised by the court that an attorney would be appointed to represent him if he so desired, he had the right to reject the offer of such appointment and to represent himself in the trial and disposition of his case. State v. Elliott, supra; State v. McNeil, 263 N.C. 260, 139 S.E. 2d 667. There was no rejection by him of the appointment of counsel upon the appeal to this Court.

¶2 Affirmed.

/272/nc/97 · .json · Public domain