The Newsletter of North Carolina Prisoner Legal Services, Inc.

Volume VII, Issue 3, September 2007

ACCESS

NCPLS

STATE V. RAYMOND LEE PARKER

DURHAM COUNTY INMATE RE-SENTENCED
BASED ON CHANGES IN SENTENCING LAWS
By NCPLS Staff Attorney Ken Butler

On May 30, 2007, in the Durham
County Superior Court, Raymond
L. Parker, a North Carolina inmate who had been
serving a life sentence for
armed robbery, was re-sentenced and released from
prison. The facts of Mr.
Parker’s case have generated significant publicity
and led many DOC inmates
to write NCPLS asking if
this case can be used to
their benefit.
Mr. Parker had been
charged with a single count of robbery with a dangerous weapon in
connection with the July 13, 1979
robbery of the Sunbeam Bakery.
The amount of money obtained in
the robbery was $173.54. Mr.
Parker pled not guilty and went to
trial. The first trial ended in a
“mistrial,” as did the second. [A
“mistrial” is one that is so procedurally or legally flawed that it
must be brought to a close by the
presiding judge.] Following a
third trial in March 1980, the jury
returned a guilty verdict. Mr.
Parker was sentenced to 40 years
to life for this conviction. He
appealed his conviction to the N.C.
Court of Appeals, which found no
error in the case. His petition for
discretionary review to the N.C.
Supreme Court was also denied.

About 27 years later, on March 7,
2007, attorneys Jerry B. Clayton

class of felony and the defendant’s
criminal record;
-- Under the Structured
Sentencing Act, the maximum punishment for a
single armed robbery conviction would be 183-229
months (15 years 3 months
to 19 years 1 month), at the
top of the aggravated range
for a Class D felony at
Level VI; and

and Freda Black, of the Durham
law firm of Clayton, Myrick,
McLanahan & Coulter, PLLC,
filed a motion for appropriate relief
(MAR) on behalf of Mr. Parker.
The MAR argued that there had
been significant changes in the
sentencing laws since Mr. Parker’s
crime was committed, and that
these changes warranted the court
granting relief. Among the changes
noted by Parker’s attorneys were:
-- The enactment of the Fair Sentencing Act in 1981 set a maximum
penalty of 40 years for the crime of
armed robbery;
-- In 1994, the Fair Sentencing
Act was replaced by the Structured
Sentencing Act, which calculated a
defendant’s sentence based on the

-- At the time of the
motion, Parker had already
served over 27 years, 7 months.
(Continued on Page 2)

In this Issue:
State v. Raymond Lee Parker

1

NCPLS Welcomes New Board
Member

2

Prisoner Awarded $25,000 in
Tort Claim Action

3

Two NCPLS Attorneys Promoted

4

Update: The Safe & Humane
Jails Project

5

Report on the 2005-2006 Legislative
Session

7

Be Cautious in Retaining Private
Organizations and Individuals to
Provide Legal Services

9

Tips on Corresponding with NCPLS 10

NCPLS ACCESS

Page 2

ACCESS is a publication of North
Carolina Prisoner Legal Services,
Inc. Established in 1978, NCPLS is a
non-profit, public service organization.
The program is governed by a Board
of Directors who are designated by
various organizations and institutions,
including the North Carolina Bar
Association, the North Carolina
Association of Black Lawyers, the
North Carolina Association of Women
Attorneys, and law school deans at
UNC, Duke, NCCU, Wake Forest and
Campbell.
NCPLS serves a population of more
than 38,600 prisoners and 14,000 pretrial
detainees (with about 250,000 annual
admissions), providing information,
advice, and representation in all State
and federal courts to ensure humane
conditions of confinement and to challenge illegal convictions and sentences.
Board of Directors
President Fred Williams, Esq.
Vice-President Susan Olive, Esq.
Immediate Past Pres. Gary Presnell, Esq.
Jim Blackburn
Prof. J. Bryan Boyd
Prof. Johnny Criscoe
James A. Crouch, Esq.
Dean Ronald Steven Douglas
Arnita M. Dula, Esq.
Dean B. Keith Faulkner
Paul Meggett, Esq.
Barry Nakell, Esq.
Prof. Ronald F. Wright
Executive Director
Michael S. Hamden, Esq.
Editor
Patricia Sanders, CLA
Please Note: ACCESS is published
four (4) times a year.
Articles, ideas
and suggestions are welcome.
Contact: tsanders@ncpls.org

Volume VII, Issue 3, September 2007

STATE V. RAYMOND LEE PARKER
(CONTINUED)

(Continued from Page 1)

In an Order of April 5, 2007, Judge
Orlando Hudson vacated Mr.
Parker’s original judgment and
set the matter for resentencing. In
an Order of May 30, 2007, Judge
Hudson sentenced Mr. Parker to
a new term of 7-9 years, awarded
him credit for the time that he had
been incarcerated, and ordered his
immediate release from custody.
NCPLS has been reviewing a
number of requests for assistance in
an effort to identify those that present possibly meritorious claims. In
evaluating such cases, we look at
the following factors:

-- Cases that have the greatest similarity to Mr. Parker’s, particularly
between the disparity between time
served and the possible maximum
sentence that would be handed
down under current law;
-- Whether the inmate was convicted of only a single crime, such
as Mr. Parker, or multiple crimes;
-- The amount of property that was
taken or lost during the crime;
-- Whether anyone was killed,
sexually assaulted, or otherwise
seriously injured;
(Continued on Page 11)

NCPLS WELCOMES NEW BOARD MEMBER
B. Keith Faulkner, who
Before attending law
serves as the Execuschool, Mr. Faulkner spent
tive Associate Dean for
eight years in the U.S.
Administrative and AcaNavy where he served
demic Affairs at Campbell
aboard the USS Billfish,
University Norman Adrian
a nuclear-powered fastWiggins School of Law,
attack submarine. He was
was recently appointed
also an instructor at the
Keith
Faulkner
to the NCPLS Board of
Nuclear Power Training
Directors by the N.C. Bar
Unit in Charleston, South
Association. He graduated from
Carolina. Just before joining the
Campbell’s School of Law and
Campbell Law School administrareceived a Master of Business
tion, Mr. Faulkner was an associate
Administration from Campbell’s
at a highly respected law firm in
Lundy-Fetterman School of BusiWilmington, North Carolina.
ness in 2001. He earned his
Bachelor of Science in Business
NCPLS welcomes Mr. Faulkner as
Administration, with high honors,
a volunteer to serve on the NCPLS
from Charleston Southern UniverBoard of Directors.
sity in Charleston, South Carolina.

Volume VII, Issue 3, September 2007

NCPLS ACCESS

Page 3

PRISONER AWARDED $25,000
IN TORT CLAIM ACTION
In a recent tort claim decision, the
failure of officers to protect a prisoner from an assault and the infliction of serious injury resulted in an
award of $25,000.
On January 6, 2000,
plaintiff was a
prisoner assigned
to protective
custody at Hoke
Correctional Institution. Plaintiff
was attacked by
another prisoner
who slashed and
injured plaintiff
with a razor blade.
The attacker was
demoted to close custody and
placed on six months long-term
segregation. However, the attacker
was not transferred to another
part of the prison, but was instead
returned to the same block where
Plaintiff was assigned.
On April 2, 2000, the attacker was
taken out of his cell for recreation
and a shower. At trial, there was
conflicting testimony as to whether
the escorting officer ordered other
inmates in the common area to
move to the far end of the room.
The attacker finished his shower
and was handcuffed (hands in
front), and escorted by two officers.
DOC procedure in effect at that
time required officers to place all
prisoners in their locked cells prior
to moving a segregated prisoner.
Defendants admitted that procedure
was not followed. And again, the
testimony differed as to whether
the prisoners were ordered to the

far end of the common area, but it
was undisputed that Plaintiff was
near the center of the day room
picking up newspapers.

The attacker, unrestrained except
with handcuffs, rushed the Plaintiff
and threw him against a podium
that was bolted to the wall. Upon
impact, Plaintiff momentarily lost
consciousness. Apparently, the
attacker was brought under control,
but when he regained consciousness, Plaintiff reported back and
neck pain. At the health clinic,
Plaintiff was examined and was
given medication to control the
pain.
Plaintiff subsequently suffered
persistent back and neck pain. On
January 23, 2001, an MRI showed
that Plaintiff suffered from a
“central broad based cervical disc
herniation of C5-C6 without a
defined mass effect on the [spinal]
cord. The cervical disc herniation
extends to the ventral cord surface.” [The C5-C6 cervical disc is
at the bottom of the neck where the
neck joins with the lumbar spine at

the shoulders. A “herniated” disc is
a protrusion of a spinal vertebrae,
also called a ruptured disc.]
On the date the case
was heard, August
29, 2007, Plaintiff
continued to suffer
from back and neck
pain. Surgery has
been recommended,
but doctors predict
no more than a 50%
chance of improvement.
The court cited
established case
law that the DOC
has a duty to exercise ordinary care
to keep its premises in a reasonably
safe condition, and failure to do so
constitutes negligence. The court
found that the officer who escorted
the attacker had been negligent,
and that Plaintiff was attacked and
seriously injured as a result of that
negligence. The court found no
credible evidence that Plaintiff had
been “contributorily negligent”
(as he might have been if he had
refused a direct order to return to
his cell and be locked back). The
court found that the injury was
lasting, painful, and would require
continuing medical treatment. On
that basis, the court awarded Plaintiff $25,000 for pain, suffering, and
future medical needs.
The law affords any party 15 days
from receipt of the order to appeal
in writing for review of the decision by the Full Industrial Commis(Continued on Page 4)

NCPLS ACCESS

Page 4

Volume VII, Issue 3, September 2007

PRISONER AWARDED $25,000
(CONTINUED)

(Continued from Page 3)

sion. N.C. Gen. Stat. §97-85. The
Order becomes final if no appeal
is filed within the time allowed by
law.
[Editor’s Note: In order to establish a claim of negligence, a plaintiff must show that (1) he was
injured as a (2) direct and immediate result of (3) the negligence of
a person who owed him some duty
(4) which was breached (or was not
fulfilled). To put it another way, a
plaintiff must allege that: (A) the
defendants had a specific duty [for
example, to protect your safety];

(B) the defendants breached their
duty (that is, that they failed to protect you); (C) that you were injured
as a “proximate” result (that is, as
a direct result); and (D) that the
injury plaintiff suffered was “foreseeable,” that is, such an injury
should have been anticipated by the
defendants.
You should also be aware that,
under the law of North Carolina,
the doctrine of “contributory negligence” is a complete defense to a
claim of negligence. That doctrine
allows defendants to argue that

plaintiff was himself negligent,
and that the plaintiff’s negligence
contributed to the injury which he
ultimately suffered. In such a case,
even if the defendants were negligent, they would be excused from
paying any money because the
plaintiff was also partly at fault.]
This case was litigated by NCPLS
Senior Staff Attorney and Civil
Team Leader J. Phillip Griffin, with
support and assistance from Staff
Attorney Sarah H. Blair. Bagley v.
NC Dept. of Correction, TA-17703
(2007).

TWO NCPLS ATTORNEYS PROMOTED
Congratulations to Hoang Lam
and Lisa Chun who have been
promoted to Senior NCPLS Staff
Attorneys. Ordinarily, young
attorneys do not so quickly achieve
senior positions, but as ACCESS
readers will recall, both Ms. Chun
and Mr. Lam have done a great
deal of litigation which has produced dramatically favorable
results for our clients. In addition,
both have demonstrated initiative
and shown such a serious commitment to our clients and our program that their accomplishments
deserve early recognition.
For example, Ms. Chun and Mr.
Lam worked together to prevent the
deportation (and probable assas-

sination of our client in the case,
In Re: Hassan (reported in the
December 2005 edition of ACCESS).
In addition, Ms. Chun has assumed
responsibility for supervising our
interns and law school volunteers.
At the same time, Mr. Lam has
undertaken significant leadership
on the PC Team, working with and
assigning cases in which our clients
entered guilty pleas.

Hoang Lam

It is the leadership and zealous
advocacy of successful young
attorneys like Mr. Lam and Ms
Chun that ensure the success and
continuous improvement of the
services NCPLS offers our clients.
Lisa Chun

Volume VII, Issue 3, September 2007

NCPLS ACCESS

Page 5

UPDATE: THE SAFE & HUMANE JAILS PROJECT
[Editor’s Note: Access readers will
remember that the Safe and Humane

Jails Project is a program to identify jail conditions
of confinement
that are unsafe or
inhumane, and
then to bring about
an improvement
in those conditions. Additionally, through the
Project, NCPLS
provides legal
advice and assistance to as many
pre-trial detainees
as possible, as well
as assisting county
officials in identifying and implementing practical and
sound measures to ensure the safe
and humane operation of detention
facilities.]
The third quarter of this year has
been a productive and exciting
one for the Safe and Humane Jails
Project of NCPLS. In addition
to a small sustaining grant from
the North Carolina State Bar’s
IOLTA program, we have been
awarded $12,000 by the North
Carolina Bar Association Foundation to research, write, and publish
a manual titled: Identification and
Treatment of Mentally Disabled
People in Jail: Understanding
and Addressing Problems Proactively. We have begun work on this
manual, which we hope will be a
useful tool to Jail Administrators,
mental health and medical professionals in the jails, and others in
the legal community who interact
regularly with detainees dealing

with mental health issues. This
project is an ambitious one and we
have been able to employ the use

of our interns to get a head start on
research for the manual.
We will have the opportunity to
share our ideas about the manual
and solicit new ideas from the
state’s Jail Administrators when
we attend the Jail Administrator’s
Conference on October 10, 2007 in
High Point. Senior Staff Attorney
and Program Coordinator, Michele
Luecking-Sunman will be accompanied by Sharon Robertson, a
certified paralegal specialist with
more than a decade of experience
working in jails across the state.
Ms. Luecking-Sunman and Ms.
Robertson will have the opportunity to make a brief presentation of
the Safe and Humane Jail Project’s
current activities and then participate in the roundtable discussion of
general jail issues.
One of the most important subjects
NCPLS advocates will address

is a practice which is sometimes
referred to as “rocket dockets.”
This practice usually involves an
officer or other official walking
through the detention facility to ask
whether anyone
wants to plead
guilty, often for
time served.
Detainees who are
tired of squalid jail
conditions sometimes agree to enter
a guilty plea, even
without the benefit of a lawyer’s
advice, just to gain
release or to be
transferred to DOC custody. From
the perspective of jail administrators, this practice simply effectuates the wishes of the prisoners and
frees-up beds in a crowded facility.
The problems with this practice
are several. No one should enter
into any agreement regarding the
disposition of criminal charges
without first speaking with a
lawyer. That’s because such agreements can have consequences that
may be unknown. For example,
an immigrant could end up being
deported, and others will have convictions that will increase the level
of punishment should they later
be convicted of a criminal charge.
Other problems may include court
costs and fees, criminal and/or civil
penalties, and financial liability to
the victim of a crime.
(Continued on Page 6)

NCPLS ACCESS

Page 6

Volume VII, Issue 3, September 2007

UPDATE: THE SAFE & HUMANE JAILS PROJECT
(CONTINUED)

(Continued from Page 5)

While there is no reason to believe
that jail officials are trying to trick
anyone or cause harm to detainees,
the practice deprives prisoners of
their constitutionally guaranteed
right to the assistance of an attorney. No detainee should agree to
enter a guilty plea before consulting a lawyer, and law enforcement
officials should not ask any prisoner to do so. We look forward to
discussing these and other issues
with jail officials at the October
conference.
Earlier this quarter, our advocates
toured both the Mecklenburg
Central and Mecklenburg North
detention facilities. Relatively
minor concerns were discussed
with officials from the facilities
following the tours. We also made

an unscheduled visit to the Surry
County Jail. (We had received
some disturbing information about
the facility and decided to see if
they would accommodate an unannounced tour.) Our advocates were
well received, jail officials were
extremely cooperative, and they
addressed our concerns about the
facility.
In litigation, an unfavorable ruling
in Rice v. Smith, NCMD, 1:05-CV434, is being reviewed by the
district court pursuant to our objections. We also accepted a new case
for litigation, Copeland v. Causey,
et al., NCED, No. 5:07-CT-3-41BO. Our client was incarcerated in
a North Carolina jail and received
no medical care after complaints
of severe pain. He was finally
admitted to the hospital and diag-

nosed with communicable MRSA
pneumonia and empyema (the
presence of pus in a bodily cavity)
which required extensive surgery
to correct. In addition, we were
able to advocate administratively
for three clients previously housed
in jails whose trust fund money did
not transfer to DOC once they left
the jail facilities. We contacted the
jails and arranged the transfer of
our client’s money to the appropriate DOC accounts. This totaled
over $290 returned to the three
clients. Finally, we opened 107
new jail files this quarter and have
responded to each issue with either
information or further assistance.
We look forward to continuing the
important work of the Safe and
Humane Jails Project.

Volume VII, Issue 3, September 2007

NCPLS ACCESS

Page 7

REPORT ON THE 2005-2006
LEGISLATIVE SESSION
(PLACE NO CONFIDENCE IN RUMORS
OF LEGISLATIVE ACTION)
It seems that rumors regarding
changes in sentencing laws abound
in prisons after every session of
the N.C. General Assembly. For
instance, a number of prisoners
have written to NCPLS about a
rumor that inmates sentenced under
the Fair Sentencing Act (FSA)
(which applies to crimes committed
before October 1, 1994), are to be
re-sentenced under
the Structured Sentencing Act (SSA).
This is not true.
Some letters ask
whether parole will
be re-instated for
inmates sentenced
under the SSA.
There is legislation pending that
could affect some
such change in the
sentencing laws.
That legislation is House Bill 1730,
entitled “An Act to Balance Fair
Sentencing and Structured Sentencing and to Keep Inmates Who
Pose Great Risks to Society in the
Prisons.” The bill would expand
the authority of the Post-Release
Supervision and Parole Commission to parole Fair Sentencing (“old
law”) prisoners who have already
served more time than they would
have received if they had been sentenced under the Structured Sentencing Act. The bill was referred
to the House Committee on the
Judiciary II on April 19, 2007 and
is being studied.

In the 2005-2006 Session, House
Bill 1308, the “Public Safety and
Treatment Act,” proposed several
changes in the habitual felon laws.
It appears that bill died in committee.
In the General Assembly’s 2005
Session, House Bill 423 was
introduced. That bill would have

created the crime of habitual misdemeanor larceny. It appears that
bill failed to pass the Senate.
Legislation that passed in the 2005
Session of the General Assembly
includes N.C. Gen. Stat. §15A1340.16, (Session Law 2005-145,
House Bill 822), which modified
several structured sentencing statutes in light of the Supreme Court’s
decision in Blakely v. Washington,
159 L.Ed.2d 403, 124 S.Ct. 2531
(2004). The changes that were
made concern the use of juries in
determining aggravating sentencing
factors, requiring notice from the
prosecution of it intends to prove

the existence of aggravating factors, and procedures for imposing
sentences outside the presumptive ranges. This bill passed both
houses of the General Assembly
and was signed into law on June
30, 2005. However, by its terms, it
only applies to convictions which
occur after that date.
Both the House and
Senate are considering the “Street Gang
Prevention Act.”
House Bill 274;
Senate Bill 1358.
One provision of
both bills would
enhance sentencing,
as follows:
§14-50.18.
Enhanced offense
for criminal gang
activity.
A person who is convicted of a
misdemeanor offense that is
committed for the benefit of, at
the direction of, or in association with, any criminal street
gang, is guilty of an offense
that is one class higher than the
offense committed. A Class A1
misdemeanor shall be enhanced
to a Class I felony under this
section.
In addition, the bills would provide
for additional enhancements for
defendants who are convicted of
(Continued on Page 8)

NCPLS ACCESS

Page 8

Volume VII, Issue 3, September 2007

REPORT ON THE 2005-2006
LEGISLATIVE SESSION
(CONTINUED)

(Continued from Page 7)

Class A through E felonies, and
who use a firearm during the
commission of the felony. The
House Bill passed and was
referred to a Senate Committee on
Appropriations just before the 2007
Session adjourned. Although there
seems to be significant support
for the measure, it has not been
determined what it would cost
the state, for example, in terms of
constructing additional prisons.
The measure has not been enacted
into law, but will be taken up in
the 2008 session. (Remember
that in order for a bill to become
law, it must ordinarily be passed

by both houses of the General
Assembly, ratified, and signed by
the Governor.)
We understand that prisoners are
anxious for any news that could
mean a reduction of their sentences. Given this natural inclination, it is easy to see how rumors
about changing laws could spread
rapidly and create false hope
among the prison population. We
hope that this information has
addressed all legislative developments of interest to prisoners and
will prevent people from needlessly raising their expectations on
the basis of false rumors.

Remember that NCPLS will review
individual cases upon request to see
whether there was an error in either
the conviction or sentence. Anyone
who wants such a review may
request an application for postconviction assistance by writing to
NCPLS. (Regrettably, we cannot
offer to assess the same case more
than once unless there has been a
retroactive change in the law, or
when newly discovered evidence
might have changed the outcome of
the case.) Meanwhile, changes in
the law will be reported as soon as
possible in ACCESS.

Volume VII, Issue 3, September 2007

NCPLS ACCESS

Page 9

BE CAUTIOUS IN RETAINING PRIVATE ORGANIZATIONS
AND INDIVIDUALS TO PROVIDE LEGAL SERVICES
By: Staff Attorney Ken Butler

As many of you know, there are
scam artists who prey upon prisoners and their families by offering
legal research and brief-writing
services, particularly in the area
of post-conviction
review. Two that we
have encountered in
the past were Richard
Mears of Mt. Airy,
who operated under
the name “RDM Legal
Research,” and Grover
C. Jones of West Virginia, doing business
as “Nationwide Criminal Justice Consulting Services.” Both
of these individuals
would charge prisoners and their families hundreds, and
sometimes thousands of dollars for
“research services,” or promising
to file a motion to challenge their
convictions. However, because
neither Mears nor Jones was an
attorney (much less N.C. licensed
attorneys), these research services
were of little or no value. (Mears
did prepare documents for some
cases that were ultimately filed
by an attorney in Winston-Salem.
That attorney has since been disbarred for his work with Mears.)
[Mears also engaged in a scheme
whereby he promised to obtain
pardons, commutations, or parole
for inmates, in exchange for a hefty
fee. He told prisoners and their
families that he had political contacts in the state Democratic Party
that could get this type of relief and
that the money paid was to be used

as campaign contributions. Mears
was subsequently convicted in
federal court of multiple counts of
mail and wire fraud based on this
scheme.]

Another such scheme may be
working its way through North
Carolina Prisons. One client
recently wrote to us reporting
that he had his case reviewed by
University Research Services, in
Michigan. An experienced NCPLS
attorney conducted some investigation of this outfit and found
that an individual named John H.
Wilson, doing business as University Legal Services and University
Research Services of Birmingham,
Michigan, has engaged in activities that appear to be similar to
those described above. Wilson has
been the subject of legal action in
Michigan and Illinois in which he
was accused of the unauthorized
practice of law. There is a 2002
court order in Michigan commanding Wilson to cease such activities
in that state.

This is the first mention that we
have heard about this University
Legal Services and University
Research Services in North Carolina. Our research suggests that
Wilson’s m.o. is to
mail pamphlets to
inmates advertising
his services. Obviously, information
from a few such
pamphlets in a given
prison can be quickly
spread by word-ofmouth.
NCPLS has contacted
the NC Attorney
General’s Consumer
Protection Division
and spoken with Assistant Attorney General David Kirkman (who
handled the case against Richard
Mears). We alerted him to this
new development, although for
reasons of client confidentiality,
we did not identify the client who
brought this matter to our attention. Mr. Kirkman said that he
would refer this matter to Assistant
Attorney General Harriet Worley,
who now handles unauthorized
practice claims. If you receive an
advertisement for legal services
from University Legal Services and
University Research Services, you
may want to contact the Office of
the Attorney General. The address
for the Consumer Protection Division is:
Consumer Protection Division
9001 MSC
Raleigh, NC 27699-9001
(Continued on Page 11)

NCPLS ACCESS

Page 10

Volume VII, Issue 3, September 2007

TIPS ON CORRESPONDING WITH NCPLS
NCPLS receives 500 or more letters from inmates each week. Our
goal is to try to respond to each
inmate who writes. The following
suggestions are offered to help us
serve the inmates who write.
1. Put your OPUS number on all
your letters/envelopes. If you are
in a jail that assigns you a jail ID
number, please use that number.
(Many inmates have the same
name, but OPUS and/or jail ID
numbers are unique. Using your
OPUS number helps to ensure the
mail will be delivered to you (and
not someone with the same names)
when we send you a response.
2. If possible, write in ink.
3. Try to write as clearly as possible, especially when writing your
name. Print clearly. Block letters
are the best. Do not use small or
elaborate handwriting. (If your
letter is hard to read, it could delay
our response time).
4. If you ever have been known by,
or are currently known by a different name (a nickname, an alias),
let us know, especially if you have
been or are currently corresponding
with NCPLS using that other name.
5. If you have a problem reading or writing, please let us know
in your letter that someone else is
writing the letter for you.
6. Be specific when describing
your problem(s) or asking questions. Broad claims that your
rights have been (or are being) violated without facts to support your

claims, cannot be investigated.
General or hypothetical questions
will not be answered.
7. If you are writing to complain
about a condition of confinement,
an injury, or a medical issue, start
the grievance process before you
write to us. If you have begun the
grievance process, be sure to let us
know. Remember that NCPLS is
NOT the place to file your DC-410
grievance forms. DC-410 forms
must be submitted to staff at your
unit, or in the case of a confidential
grievance, to the Director of Prisons. You must exhaust the grievane process before filing a federal
lawsuit.

11. Do NOT send us any physical
evidence (other than paperwork)
that you believe supports your
allegations. It is hard to store and
keep-up with that kind of material.
We will let you know if we need
anything more than documents.
12. Be patient. Our goal is to
respond to every letter we receive.
If you follow the above suggestions
and you are requesting forms or
other information, it is likely that
we will respond within 24 hours of
receiving your request. For some
requests for assistance, it will take
longer, but we try to acknowledge
all inquiries within 30 days.

8. NCPLS will NOT forward mail
for inmates. (That would violate
DOC rules, and we cannot effectively function on your behalf if
we jeopardize our relationship with
the DOC or abuse the trust we have
built over the years.)
9. There are many types of lawsuits an inmate can file. If you
are requesting one of our self-help
packets to file suit on your own,
be as specific as possible about
the type of lawsuit you are planning to file so that we can send
you the right packet. However, if
you know the name of the specific
packet, you can just write, “Please
send me a __________ packet.”

....
.
.,
.........,..............

10. It is not necessary to cite cases
when you write to us. NCPLS is
familiar with prisoner rights law
and stays up-to-date on changes in
the laws that affect prisoners and
their rights.

........... d'

...

...'1

ph

&-vru
~.

...

p
C

...

Fe

to. . . . . . ._

.

_ • • r' •
u.DI...... &3:
"

......... s

d

.. ~

"

Volume VII, Issue 3, September 2007

NCPLS ACCESS

Page 11

BE CAUTIOUS IN RETAINING PRIVATE ORGANIZATIONS
(CONTINUED)

(Continued from Page 9)

This type of operation has the
potential to cost prisoners and
their families a great amount of
money. (Mears alone obtained
over $600,000.) Obviously, prisoners and their families are often
desperate to find some way to get
relief. Since most lack any legal
training, they are not in a position
to gauge the value of what they are
promised. For example, our client
said that the research he received
indicated that he should look at
issues of “ineffective assistance of
counsel” and “prosecutorial mis-

conduct” to seek relief. Of course,
those are only two of the many
grounds upon which a collateral
challenge to a conviction may be
mounted. Apparently, the
“research” did not explain how
either theory applied to our client’s
case, and so, was entirely without
value.
Unfortunately, many of our clients
are distrustful of free legal services,
particularly those who were represented by court appointed counsel.
In many cases they believe that if

they had been able to hire a lawyer,
they would not be in prison. These
factors, together with desperation
and an overwhelming desire to
return to family and friends create
a highly vulnerable population for
these research scam artists.
Before you pay for legal services
(especially from a non-lawyer or an
attorney who seems to be licensed
in another state), you may wish to
consult a North Carolina lawyer for
advice as to whether you’re about
to be victimized.

STATE V. RAYMOND LEE PARKER
(CONTINUED)

(Continued from Page 2)

-- Whether the inmate has a history of escape from custody or was
paroled and subsequently revoked.

If you believe that the facts of your
case are similar to Mr. Parker’s,
please contact NCPLS. Be sure
to mention that you are seeking a

review for the kind of relief Mr.
Parker received, especially if our
office has previously evaluated
your case.

THE NEWSLETTER OF NORTH CAROLINA
PRISONER LEGAL SERVICES, INC.
1110 Wake Forest Road
P.O. Box 25397
Raleigh, NC 27611
Phone: (919) 856-2200
Fax: (919) 856-2223
Email: tsanders@ncpls.org

Visit our website at:
http://www.ncpls.org