In Re Watson, 209 N.C. App. 507

Ronald Watson was involuntarily committed for 30 days inpatient at Central Regional Hospital followed by 60 days outpatient treatment.
The district court hearing allowed Watson to proceed pro se with standby counsel, without a written waiver or thorough on-record inquiry.
Dr. Novosad opined Watson was mentally ill and dangerous, recommending 30-day inpatient and 60-day outpatient commitments.
Watson testified in a rambling, accusatory manner; the court found him grossly psychotic with significant paranoia and dangerousness.
The court concluded Watson was represented by counsel and ordered the commitment, after which Watson appealed.
The Court of Appeals vacated the commitment order and remanded for a new hearing due to improper waiver of counsel and lack of thorough inquiry.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Watson validly waived counsel	Watson argues waiver was ineffective due to lack of thorough inquiry.	State asserts Watson was represented by counsel and waived properly.	Waiver of counsel ineffective; order vacated and remanded.
Whether the district court conducted a proper 15A-1242 inquiry	Watson contends inquiry was insufficient to establish knowing, intelligent waiver.	State contends inquiry satisfied statutory standards.	Inquiry was not thorough; failure to satisfy 15A-1242 requires reversal.
Whether Watson was effectively represented by counsel despite standby counsel	Watson had no actual representation; standby counsel is not adequate.	Court relied on standby counsel as representation.	No competent evidence of effective counsel; ineffective waiver.

In re Underwood, 247 S.E.2d 778 (N.C. App. 1978) (competent evidence standard for commitment findings)
In re Collins, 271 S.E.2d 72 (N.C. App. 1980) (standard for reviewing commitment facts)
In re Eades, 547 S.E.2d 146 (N.C. App. 2001) (mandatory nature of counsel requirements in commitment cases)
State v. Moore, 661 S.E.2d 722 (N.C. 2008) (requiring knowing, intelligent waiver and thorough inquiry)
State v. Thomas, 417 S.E.2d 473 (N.C. 1992) (necessity of understanding consequences when waiving counsel)
Pruitt, 369 S.E.2d 590 (N.C. 1988) (failure to conduct proper waiver inquiry prejudicial error)
Lane, 669 S.E.2d 321 (N.C. 2008) (limits on self-representation based on mental capacity)
Moore, 362 N.C. 319 (N.C. 2008) (thorough inquiry required for waiver of counsel in criminal cases)
Jesse M., 217 Ariz. 74, 170 P.3d 683 (Ariz. 2007) (guidance on waiving counsel in commitment-like proceedings)
Heryford v. Parker, 396 F.2d 393 (10th Cir. 1968) (due process duty to provide counsel in parens patriae context)