Court Opinion

ID: 9844948
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 03:12:23.216224+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:15:48.026614
License: Public Domain

STROUD, Judge
concurring.
Although I concur in the result reached by the majority opinion, I write this separate opinion because I do not believe that defendant *259demonstrated that he ever requested court-appointed counsel, nor does the record reflect that he is an indigent defendant who would qualify for court-appointed counsel. However, I concur in the result, as I do not believe that defendant demonstrated a violation of his right to effective assistance of counsel, whether he was requesting the opportunity to retain new counsel and a continuance of his trial or he was requesting court-appointed counsel.
The difficulty arises because it is not clear whether defendant was asking for court-appointed counsel or if he was asking for a continuance to retain new counsel on his own. Defendant’s specific statement to the trial court was “I don’t want to try the case myself. I want to get another lawyer.” Unfortunately, the briefs do not clear up the confusion regarding defendant’s request. Defendant’s brief implies that defendant’s trial counsel was court-appointed and that he wanted new court-appointed counsel. The State’s brief repeatedly refers to defendant’s counsel as court-appointed. However, the record clearly demonstrates that defendant’s trial counsel was privately retained. In addition, the record does not contain an affidavit of indigency or any request by defendant for court-appointed counsel, nor is there any indication that defendant would have qualified for court-appointed counsel. Even if the trial court had permitted defendant’s retained counsel to withdraw from the case, defendant would not have been entitled to court-appointed counsel if he did not qualify as indigent pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7A-450. See N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7A-450 (2007); State v. Turner, 283 N.C. 53, 55, 194 S.E.2d 831, 832 (1973) (“The requirement that the State furnish counsel to each defendant charged with a criminal offense beyond the class of petty misdemeanor is conditioned upon a showing of indigency and inability to procure counsel for that reason.” (citations omitted)).
For the above reasons, I concur with the result reached by the majority opinion.