Opinion ID: 1201220
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Defendant's Pro Se Speedy Trial Motion

Text: Defendant next argues that the trial court erred by summarily denying his pro se motion to dismiss on speedy trial grounds. We disagree. Defendant was represented by appointed counsel and was not allowed to file pro se motions on his behalf. A defendant has only two choices`to appear in propria persona or, in the alternative, by counsel. There is no right to appear both in propria persona and by counsel.' State v. Thomas, 331 N.C. 671, 677, 417 S.E.2d 473, 477 (1992) (citations omitted) (quoting State v. Parton, 303 N.C. 55, 61, 277 S.E.2d 410, 415 (1981), disavowed on other grounds by State v. Freeman, 314 N.C. 432, 437-38, 333 S.E.2d 743, 746-47 (1985)). Having elected for representation by appointed defense counsel, defendant cannot also file motions on his own behalf or attempt to represent himself. Defendant has no right to appear both by himself and by counsel. State v. Grooms, 353 N.C. 50, 61, 540 S.E.2d 713, 721 (2000) (citations omitted), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 838, 122 S.Ct. 93, 151 L.Ed.2d 54 (2001). Defendant asserts that these cases do not apply to his pro se motion to dismiss on speedy trial grounds because defense counsel adopted these motions. We disagree. Before the trial court considered the motion at issue, defense counsel stated: The defendant filed some pro se motions. We need rulings on those. The trial court informed defendant that he had no right to file motions on his own behalf and that he could not continue to file pro se motions while being represented by counsel. The trial court then declined to rule on the pro se motions. Defendant argues that the trial court erred in not ruling on his pro se motions because the trial court erroneously believed that counsel had filed motions covering the issues raised by defendant in his pro se motions. That the trial court might have been mistaken as to whether defense counsel had filed similar motions is inapposite. Defendant was not entitled to file pro se motions while represented by counsel, and the statement to the trial court by defense counsel that the pro se motions needed to be ruled on hardly represents counsel's adoption of defendant's motion. Accordingly, the trial court did not err in refusing to rule on defendant's pro se speedy trial motion. Defendant's assignments of error are overruled.