Court Opinion

ID: 9600406
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 01:26:47.481518+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:01:52.326220
License: Public Domain

ELMORE, Judge
dissenting.
I do not agree with the majority’s holding that defendant fully understood her waiver of counsel. As discussed above, N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-1242 (2003) mandates that the trial judge must conduct a “thorough inquiry and [be] satisfied that the defendant . . . [h]as been clearly advised[,] . . . [understands and appreciates [,] . . . and [comprehends” three distinct aspects of their waiver. A trial court’s failure to thoroughly inquire into 1) the right to counsel; 2) the consequences of the decision to proceed pro se; and 3) the nature of the proceedings and possible punishments, fails to meet the statutory requirements for a clear an unequivocal wavier. See N.C. Gen. *623Stat. § 15A-1242 (2003); State v. Cox, 164 N.C. App. 399, 401-02, 595 S.E.2d 726, 728 (2004); State v. Evans, 153 N.C. App. 313, 315-16, 569 S.E.2d 673, 675 (2002). There is no indication that Judge Hill’s inquiry of defendant rose to this comprehensive level.
Most recently, in State v. Hill, 168 N.C. App. 391, 396-97, 607 S.E.2d 670, 673-74 (2005), this Court held that an open court discussion probing each of the three concerns stated in 15A-1242 was sufficient to support a waiver. There the court took several opportunities to make sure that defendant understood the detailed allegations against him, the possible penalties, and the full ramifications of waving not only appointed counsel but proceeding pro se. Id. Yet, in Cox, 164 N.C. App. at 399-402, 595 S.E.2d at 727-28, we reversed the probation revocation of defendant and remanded for a new hearing because the trial court failed to adequately comply with the dictates of section 15A-1242. There the trial court only inquired or informed defendant of his right to counsel or proceed pro se. The court did not inquire on whether defendant understood the ramifications of proceeding pro se. Id.
The inquiry conducted by Judge Hill aligns more closely with Cox and Evans than it does with the trial court’s thorough inquiry in Hill. Here, the trial court failed to conduct any detailed inquiry into whether defendant understood and appreciated the consequences of the waiver or comprehended the nature of the charges and permissible punishments. See N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-1242 (2003). There was no explanation of the full charges by the probation officer and district attorney, nor was there any understanding evidenced that defendant appreciated the consequences of waiving counsel solely a question of “do you understand?”
Any question of whether defendant understood, comprehended, or appreciated the wavier of counsel should have been answered in the negative when she tried to explain why she did not have an attorney.
District Att: Ma’am, do you admit or deny that you have, as of the date of this report, which was October 22, 2003, that you failed to complete 50 hours of community service?
Defendant: Excuse me. I cannot hire my own lawyer because I—
Court: Ma’am, listen to me very carefully.
Defendant: I’m sorry
*624Court: First of all, your going to have to talk so the court reporter can hear what you’re saying. She asked you do you admit or deny certain violations. You answer I admit it or I deny it.
Defendant: I admit it.
Court: We’re not here to hear a long sob story yet. I certainly will hear your reasons once we get through this portion of the procedure, okay? Okay. So as to the — -just start all over.
The majority refers to defendant seizing upon “a partial statement” to bolster her claim that she did not understand the wavier. But her statement was only partial due to the fact that Judge Hill directed her to answer the question. It is unsubstantiated speculation on behalf of the majority to suggest that defendant was avoiding the question asked by the district attorney. Further, while marginally relevant, it is not “significant” to a determination of understanding a waiver that defendant asked for a continuance.
Further, while marginally relevant, it is not “significant” to a determination of understanding a waiver that defendant asked for a continuance. Defendant asked the district attorney for a continuance so that she could make payment on money owed under one of the judgments. The district attorney brought the request to the court’s attention. After a brief discussion between the trial court, defendant, and probation officer, Judge Hill denied the continuance. The very next words were the district attorney’s, listed above, and an attempted explanation by defendant as to why she could not afford an attorney. The district attorney then went through a series of “do you admit” questions regarding defendant’s alleged probation violations, and defendant answered only “yes, ma’am” to each question. This exchange hardly shows zealous advocacy from someone who thoroughly understood the implications of waiving counsel and proceeding pro se.
Even though the mere utterance of “lawyer,” “counsel,” or “attorney” will not thwart an otherwise thorough inquiry, I am not convinced that section 15A-1242’s “thorough” multiple approach inquiry has been achieved here. See, e.g., Hill, 168 N.C. App. at 396, 607 S.E.2d at 673 (“Even after defendant discharged his appointed counsel and signed the written waiver of his right to assistance of counsel, the court offered defendant the opportunity to request a continuance for the purpose of hiring a private attorney.”).
Accordingly, I would reverse the court’s judgment revoking defendant’s probation and remand for a new hearing.