Probation and Parole--probation revocation--knowing and voluntary decision to represent
oneself
The trial court did not err in a revocation of probation and activation of sentences for
food stamp fraud, solicitation to obtain property by false pretenses, uttering a forged instrument,
and obtaining property by false pretenses case by allowing defendant to represent herself
allegedly without asking her if she understood the nature of the charges and the consequences of
her decision to proceed without a lawyer, because: (1) the trial court's inquiry informed
defendant that if she was found to have violated probation, then she faced the possible
consequence of active service of the sentences; (2) the court informed defendant that she had the
right to the assistance of an attorney, and defendant indicated that she understood but chose to
proceed without an attorney; and (3) the court's inquiry elicited the information necessary under
N.C.G.S. § 15A-1242 for it to make a determination that defendant's decision to represent
herself was knowing and voluntary.
Attorney General Roy Cooper, by Assistant Attorney General
Thomas M. Woodward, for the State.
Duncan B. McCormick for defendant appellant.
McCULLOUGH, Judge.
Defendant appeals from revocation of probation and activation
of sentences for food stamp fraud, solicitation to obtain property
by false pretenses, uttering a forged instrument (two counts), and
obtaining property by false pretenses (two counts).
Defendant's sole contention is that the court erred by
allowing defendant to represent herself without asking her if she
understood the nature of the charges and the consequences of her
decision to proceed without a lawyer. At the call of the matter for hearing, the following
transpired:
MS. RHODES [D.A.]: Her attorney situation
needs to be addressed as well. May I approach
with the file, Your Honor?
THE COURT: You may.
Ms. Proby, you do have the right to
remain silent; anything you say can be used
against you. Do you understand that?
THE PROBATIONER: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: If you're found to have
willfully violated probation, you could be
ordered to serve a sentence of not less than
six nor more than eight months, followed by a
consecutive sentence of not less than eight
nor more than ten months, and another sentence
of not less than six nor more than eight that
would run at the same time as those other two.
Do you understand that?
THE PROBATIONER: Yes.
THE COURT: You have a right to have a
lawyer help you with your cases. If you can
[sic] afford one, we'll appoint one. Do you
understand?
THE PROBATIONER: Yes.
THE COURT: Do you wish to proceed with a
lawyer or without?
THE PROBATIONER: Without.
THE COURT: Please step over here and sign
a waiver of your right to all assistance of
counsel and be sworn to it.
THE PROBATIONER SIGNS A WAIVER OF COUNSEL
FORM AND IS SWORN TO THE SAME.
Defendant then admitted to the violations of probation.
After defendant was sentenced, she returned to the courtroom
later that day and informed the court that she “didn't understand
the question about the lawyer situation. The reason why I signedthe waiver saying I didn't want an attorney was because my
probation officer had told me before we came to Court that you
[sic] she wasn't requesting that I go to prison.” The court denied
her request for relief.
Before a defendant in a probation revocation is allowed to
represent himself, the court must comply with the requirements of
N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-1242 (2003); State v. Evans, 153 N.C. App.
313, 314-15, 569 S.E.2d 673, 674 (2002).
This statute provides:
A defendant may be permitted at his
election to proceed in the trial of his case
without the assistance of counsel only after
the trial judge makes thorough inquiry and is
satisfied that the defendant:
(1) Has been clearly advised of his right to
the assistance of counsel, including his
right to the assignment of counsel when
he is so entitled;
(2) Understands and appreciates the
consequences of this decision; and
(3) Comprehends the nature of the charges and
proceedings and the range of permissible
punishments.
N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-1242. When a claim is made relating to the
adequacy of the foregoing statutory inquiry, “the critical issue is
whether the statutorily required information has been communicated
in such a manner that defendant's decision to represent himself is
knowing and voluntary.” State v. Carter, 338 N.C. 569, 583, 451
S.E.2d 157, 164 (1994).
The trial judge's inquiry in the case at bar clearly informed
defendant that if she is found to have violated probation, then she
faced the possible consequence of active service of the sentences.
The court also clearly informed defendant that she had the right tothe assistance of an attorney. Defendant's responses clearly
indicated that she understood.
Because the court's inquiry elicited the information necessary
for it to make a determination that defendant's decision to
represent herself was knowing and voluntary, we conclude the court
complied with the requirements of the statute.
The judgments are
Affirmed.
Chief Judge MARTIN and Judge CALABRIA concur.
*** Converted from WordPerfect ***