Title: State v. Lane

State: north-carolina

Issuer: North Carolina Supreme Court

Document:

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. ERIC GLENN LANE
No. 606A05 
FILED: 12 DECEMBER 2008
Appeal as of right pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 7A-27(a) from
a judgment imposing a sentence of death entered by Judge Gary E.
Trawick on 11 July 2005 in Superior Court, Wayne County, upon a
jury verdict finding defendant guilty of first-degree murder.  On
20 March 2008, the Supreme Court allowed defendant’s motion to
bypass the Court of Appeals as to his appeal of additional
judgments.  Heard in the Supreme Court on 17 November 2008.
Roy Cooper, Attorney General, by Robert C. Montgomery,
Special Deputy Attorney General, and Derrick C. Mertz,
Assistant Attorney General, for the State.
Ann B. Petersen for defendant-appellant.
PER CURIAM.
The trial court entered judgment imposing the jury’s
capital sentence in this case on 11 July 2005.  The Supreme Court
of the United States decided Indiana v. Edwards on 19 June 2008. 
__ U.S. __, 128 S. Ct. 2379, 171 L. Ed. 2d 345 (2008).  Based on
Edwards, defendant argues on appeal that he is entitled to a new
trial because the trial court was unaware of its discretion to
deny defendant’s request for self-representation, and that if it
had been aware of its discretion, the trial court would have
required counsel for defendant.  In light of Edwards, this case
is remanded to the Superior Court, Wayne County, for further
hearing by the presiding trial judge to determine the following
issues:
-2-
(1) At the time defendant sought to represent himself
in this matter, did he come within the category of “borderline-
competent” (or “gray-area”) defendants, id. at __, 128 S. Ct. at
2384-85, 171 L. Ed. 2d at 353-55, defined by the Supreme Court of
the United States as parties “competent enough to stand trial
under Dusky [v. United States, 362 U.S. 402, 80 S. Ct. 788, 4 L.
Ed. 2d 824 (1960) (per curiam)] but who still suffer from severe
mental illness to the point where they are not competent to
conduct trial proceedings by themselves”?  Edwards, __ U.S. at
__, 128 S. Ct. at 2388, 171 L. Ed. 2d at 357.
Only if the first inquiry is answered in the
affirmative should the trial court proceed to this second issue:
(2) Given that the United States Constitution permits
judges to preclude self-representation for defendants adjudged to
be “borderline-competent” based on a “realistic account of the
particular defendant’s mental capacities,” id. at __, 128 S. Ct.
at 2387-88, 171 L. Ed. 2d at 357, the court shall consider
whether the court in its discretion would have precluded self-
representation for defendant and appointed counsel for him
pursuant to Indiana v. Edwards, and if so, whether in this case
defendant was prejudiced by his period of self-representation.
The trial court is directed to hold this hearing, make
findings of fact and conclusions of law, and certify its opinion
to this Court within 120 days of the filing date of this opinion.
REMANDED.