STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
v. Durham County
Nos. 04 CRS 15863-64
WILLIAM ELIJAH RICHARDSON 04 CRS 50391-92
Attorney General Roy Cooper, by Assistant Attorney General
LaShawn L. Strange, for the State.
James N. Freeman, Jr., for defendant appellant.
McCULLOUGH, Judge.
On 19 July 2004, defendant William Elijah Richardson pled
guilty to breaking and entering and larceny after breaking and
entering. The trial court sentenced defendant to two consecutive
terms of eleven to fourteen months' imprisonment, suspended the
sentence and placed defendant on thirty-six months' supervised
probation. On 21 October 2004, defendant's probation officer filed
two violation reports alleging that defendant had violated his
supervised probation. The trial court held a probation revocation
hearing, at which defendant represented himself. At the conclusion
of the hearing, the trial court found that defendant willfully and
without lawful excuse violated the terms and conditions of his
probation and activated defendant's original sentence. Defendantappeals.
Defendant first contends the trial court erred by allowing him
to proceed pro se without conducting an inquiry pursuant to N.C.
Gen. Stat. § 15A-1242. The State concedes, and we agree, that the
trial court failed to conduct the inquiry required by N.C. Gen.
Stat. § 15A-1242.
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; State v. Evans, 153 N.C. App. 313,
314-15, 569 S.E.2d 673, 674 (2002). N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-1242
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 (2003). “The provisions of N.C. Gen.
Stat. § 15A-1242 are mandatory where the defendant requests to
proceed pro se. The execution of a written waiver is no substitute
for compliance by the trial court with the statute.” State v.
Evans, 153 N.C. App. 313, 315, 569 S.E.2d 673, 675 (2002) (citation
omitted). The following transpired after the trial court called
defendant's probation violation case for hearing:
THE COURT: Now you do have a right to have a
lawyer. If you want a lawyer, you can hire
your lawyer. And if you want a lawyer and
can't afford it, I'll appoint one for you. Do
I understand you told me you want to go
without a lawyer and represent yourself?
[THE DEFENDANT]: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: Stand up, sir. Put your left hand
on the Bible, raise your right hand. Are you
swearing under oath you do not want the Court
to appoint a lawyer for you, do not want to
hire a lawyer, and you're waiving the right to
a lawyer in all respects?
[THE DEFENDANT]: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: Let him sign a waiver.
Thereafter, defendant signed a waiver of counsel form.
Here, the trial court informed defendant that he had the right
to the assistance of an attorney and defendant clearly stated he
would represent himself. The trial court's inquiry, however,
satisfied only the first of the three inquiries required by N.C.
Gen. Stat. § 15A-1242. Because the trial court failed to conduct
the requisite inquiries into whether defendant understood and
appreciated the consequences of his decision to proceed pro se and
whether defendant comprehended the nature of the charges and
proceedings and the range of permissible punishments, we reverse
and remand.
Reversed and remanded.
Judges TYSON and ELMORE concur.
Report per Rule 30(e).
*** Converted from WordPerfect ***