Case Name: STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. WINSTON FRED WILLIAMS
Court: Supreme Court of North Carolina
Jurisdiction: North Carolina
Decision Date: 1985-01-08
Citations: 312 N.C. 617
Docket Number: No. 113PA84
Parties: STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. WINSTON FRED WILLIAMS
Judges: Justice VAUGHN did not participate in the consideration or decision of this case.
Reporter: North Carolina Reports
Volume: 312
Pages: 617–618

Head Matter:
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. WINSTON FRED WILLIAMS
No. 113PA84
(Filed 8 January 1985)
BEFORE Martin, J., and a jury, at the 8 October 1979 Criminal Session of WAKE County Superior Court, defendant was found guilty of second-degree rape and first-degree burglary and sentenced to life imprisonment on the burglary conviction with a concurrent twenty-five year to life term on the rape conviction. Defendant timely appealed to this Court requesting that an examination be made of the record to determine if any prejudicial error occurred at defendant’s trial. We held that there was no error and affirmed the conviction. State v. Williams, 300 N.C. 190, 265 S.E. 2d 215 (1980).
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, defendant brought an action for writ of habeas corpus in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina. On 3 January 1984, the Honorable Franklin T. Dupree, Jr., ordered that the writ should issue and defendant’s conviction be vacated unless the North Carolina appellate courts conducted a direct review of defendant’s conviction within sixty days. Thereafter, on 5 March 1984, defendant filed with this Court his petition for certiorari, pursuant to Rule 21 of the North Carolina Rules of Appellate Procedure. Defendant’s petition was allowed by this Court on 3 April 1984. On 25 June 1984, the State of North Carolina certified to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina that the State had complied with the order of the Honorable Franklin T. Dupree, Jr.
Rufus L. Edmisten, by Walter M. Smith, Assistant Attorney General, for the State-appellee.
Robert E. Zaytoun, for defendant-appellant.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
This case is remanded to the Superior Court, Wake County, for a plenary hearing in the nature of a motion for appropriate relief upon defendant's allegations of ineffective assistance of counsel.
Remanded.
Justice VAUGHN did not participate in the consideration or decision of this case.