Court Opinion

ID: 9598073
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 01:05:00.936592+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:01:40.632023
License: Public Domain

Justice Britt
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent, and vote to affirm the decision of the Court of Appeals.
The majority awards defendant a new trial on the ground that his constitutional rights were violated when the trial court did not afford him and his counsel adequate time to prepare for trial. I do not think there are sufficient established facts in the record to justify this determination. In my view the majority opinion creates another stumbling block in bringing defendants to trial.
In State v. McFadden, 292 N.C. 609, 234 S.E. 2d 742 (1977) this court said:
It is implicit in the constitutional guarantees of assistance of counsel and confrontation of one’s accusers and witnesses against him that an accused and his counsel shall have a reasonable time to investigate, prepare and present his defense. However, no set length of time is guaranteed and whether defendant is denied due process must be determined under the circumstances of each case. (Citations.)
292 N.C. at 616.
The burden is on defendant to show that he and his counsel were not afforded adequate time to prepare for trial. State v. *553Sneed, 284 N.C. 606, 201 S.E. 2d 867 (1974). In my view, defendant has not carried that burden. The record indicates that he and Attorney King were notified one week prior to 24 November 1980 that the case would be called for trial on that date; that defendant’s prior counsel, Attorney Work, had engaged in considerable discovery and investigation and at least four or five days prior to trial offered to provide defendant’s new counsel with the results of his labors; that Attorney King made a motion for continuance on Thursday before the trial on Monday and the court denied the motion; and that the district attorney advised defendant himself on Thursday or Friday that the case would be called on Monday. In awarding a new trial the majority is assuming, among other things, that at no time between 19 November 1980 and 24 November 1980 did defense counsel have an opportunity to talk with defendant, confer with Attorney Work and otherwise prepare for trial.1 There is nothing in the record showing that Attorney Frazier attempted to do any of these things or that defendant attempted to contact his attorney between Thursday and Monday. Although the record indicates that Attorney Frazier was engaged in the trial of a criminal matter at Camp Lejeune, the record does not disclose when he ceased working on that matter prior to 24 November.
The ground upon which the majority awards a new trial should be addressed in a motion for appropriate relief as provided by G.S. 15A-1415. Under that procedure the trial court could receive sworn testimony from Attorneys King and Frazier and defendant on the question of why they did not have adequate time to prepare for trial.
The majority relies strongly on the decision of this court in State v. McFadden, supra, in which this court granted the defendant a new trial for the reason that his counsel was not given adequate time to prepare for trial. The facts in that case are distinguishable from the facts of the case at hand.
In McFadden, the defendant had employed Attorney Powell to represent him. On the day of trial, Mr. Parrish, one of Mr. *554Powell’s junior associates, appeared before the trial judge and advised him that Mr. Powell was at that time engaged in a trial in the U.S. District Court; that Mr. Powell was the only person prepared to try the case; and that he (Mr. Parrish) knew nothing about the case. The record further reveals that Mr. Parrish had practiced law for only 18 months and had previously tried only one jury case. The trial judge denied the motion for continuance and directed Mr. Parrish to represent defendant.
In the case at hand, Attorney King, an associate of Attorney Frazier, was involved in the case for at least five days prior to trial. There is nothing in the record showing his experience in the trial of cases. On the day of trial, Attorney Frazier appeared and moved for a continuance on the ground that he was not prepared. His only explanation for not being prepared was that he had been engaged in the trial of a federal matter; he gave no further specifics. It will be noted that irrespective of the federal case, Attorney Frazier was in superior court on Monday and proceeded to represent defendant when required to do so.
I vote to affirm the Court of Appeals.
Justices COPELAND and Meyer join in this dissenting opinion.

. It is true that a weekend is included in that period of time. I know of no statute, rule of court or canon of ethics that prevents an attorney from working on a weekend when he knows his client’s case is set for trial on Monday.