State v. Huntley
Court of Appeals of North Carolina
1Opinion of the Court
HEDRICK, Judge.
In his brief defendant’s counsel asserts: “The court may not lawfully require an indigent defendant to reimburse the State for counsel fees paid on his behalf.” Citing In Re Allen, 78 Cal. Rptr. 207, 455 P. 2d 143 (1969), the defendant contends that a probation condition requiring him to reimburse the State for the cost of his court-appointed counsel is an infringement on his constitutional right to counsel. In a similar case, State v. Foust, 13 N.C. App. 382, 185 S.E. 2d 718 (1972), this Court rejected the same contention and held as a condition of probation an indigent…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- In Re AllenCalifornia Supreme Court · 1969
- State v. RobinsonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1958
- State v. CaudleSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1970
- State v. FoustCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1972
- State v. CaudleCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1970
3Cited by4 opinions
- State v. YoungCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1974
- State v. SmithCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1979
- State v. NealCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1972
- State v. SellarsCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1983