STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
v. Northhampton County
No. 04 CRS 1156
GLORIA ANN TAYLOR
Attorney General Roy Cooper, by Assistant Attorney General
Vanessa N. Totten, for the State.
Bryan Emery Gates, Jr., for defendant-appellant.
STEELMAN, Judge.
Defendant Gloria Ann Taylor appeals from judgment entered upon
revocation of her probation. For the following reasons, we affirm.
On 25 October 2004, defendant pled guilty to possession of
stolen goods. The trial court sentenced defendant to eleven to
fourteen months imprisonment, suspended the sentence and placed
defendant on twelve months supervised probation. On 25 August 2005,
defendant's probation officer filed a probation violation report
alleging that defendant had failed to pay her monetary obligation
and failed to report to her probation officer as ordered in the
judgment.
A probation violation hearing was heard before Judge Thomas D.Haigwood on 26 April 2006. Defendant executed a written waiver of
counsel and proceeded pro se. After hearing testimony, the trial
court concluded that defendant wilfully violated her probation,
and then revoked defendant's probation. The trial court activated
her sentence, reduced it to nine to eleven months imprisonment and
recommended defendant be placed in the Mary Frances Treatment
Center. Defendant appeals.
Defendant contends the trial court erred by allowing her to
proceed pro se without conducting an inquiry as required by N.C.
Gen. Stat. § 15A-1242. At the call of the matter for hearing, the
following transpired:
THE COURT: Ms. Taylor, good afternoon. Ms.
Taylor, do you understand that if your
probation were revoked you could be required
to serve the active sentence that has been
suspended? Do you understand?
DEFENDANT: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: Do you understand that you are
entitled to be represented by a lawyer in the
matter or you may choose to represent
yourself?
THE DEFENDANT: (Witness nods head in
affirmative.)
THE COURT: You have to say yes or no.
THE DEFENDANT: Yes.
THE COURT: Thank you. Do you understand that
if you want to be represented by a lawyer you
should hire your own if you can afford to but
if you are unable to afford a lawyer but need
one or want one you can ask me to consider
appointing you a lawyer at the State expense;
do you understand?
THE DEFENDANT: Yes.
THE COURT: How do you wish to proceed, with or
without a lawyer?
THE DEFENDANT: Without.
THE COURT: You are going to represent
yourself?
THE DEFENDANT: Yes.
THE COURT: All right. I'll ask that you sign
a paper or document. The sheriff will hand
you the paper there. If you will sign that
paper stating that you will represent
yourself.
(Whereupon, the Defendant signs waiver.)
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. See State v. Evans, 153 N.C. App. 313,
314-15, 569 S.E.2d 673, 674-75 (2002). Section 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 (2005).
“The provisions of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-1242 are mandatory
where the defendant requests to proceed pro se. The execution of awritten waiver is no substitute for compliance by the trial court
with the statute.” Evans at 315, 569 S.E.2d at 675 (citation
omitted). 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 inquiry detailed in N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-1242 has
been deemed sufficient to meet the constitutional standards in
determining “whether the defendant knowingly, intelligently, and
voluntarily waives the right to in-court representation by counsel.
State v. Thomas, 331 N.C. 671, 674, 417 S.E.2d 473, 476 (1992).
We believe the court's discussion with defendant in open court
was sufficient to satisfy the mandate of N.C. Gen. Stat. §
15A-1242. The trial judge's inquiry in the case at bar clearly
informed defendant that if she was found to have violated
probation, then she faced the possible consequences of having her
suspended sentence activated. The court also clearly informed
defendant that she had the right to the 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 and with defendant's
constitutional rights.
Accordingly, the trial court's judgments revoking defendant'sprobation are affirmed.
AFFIRMED.
Judges MCCULLOUGH and LEVINSON concur.
Report per Rule 30(e).
*** Converted from WordPerfect ***