State v. BlakeneyÂ
245 N.C. App. 452
| N.C. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- In Sept. 2011 police arrested Jonathan Blakeney and he later gave a statement admitting possession of a firearm; he was indicted for possession of a firearm by a felon (11 CRS 55059). He signed waivers of assigned counsel in 2012 expecting to retain private counsel.
- In Nov. 2013 the State indicted him as an habitual felon; by Dec. 2014 the case was set for trial. Defendant had previously missed a court date; the State had also delayed prosecution for years.
- On the morning of trial (Dec. 15, 2014) defendant’s retained attorney, Vernon Cloud, moved to withdraw because defendant no longer wanted him to represent that particular charge; defendant stated he planned to hire another lawyer (Miles Helms). The court denied a continuance, released Cloud from that one case, and put defendant on one-hour standby. Defendant never clearly requested to proceed pro se.
- On Dec. 17 the case was called; Helms declined to take the case and the court proceeded with Blakeney representing himself without conducting the § 15A‑1242 Faretta-type inquiry or warning him that firing counsel could force self-representation.
- The trial proceeded, Blakeney was polite and participated (including testifying), and the jury convicted him of possession by a felon and then found habitual‑felon status; the court sentenced him to a mitigated term.
- On appeal Blakeney argued the court erred by effectively forcing him to proceed pro se without a clear waiver, statutory inquiry, or warning; the Court of Appeals agreed and reversed for a new trial.
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | Blakeney's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court lawfully required defendant to proceed pro se without a Faretta/§ 15A‑1242 inquiry | Defendant forfeited right to counsel by firing his attorney to delay trial; forfeiture can be found where defendant’s actions obstruct scheduling | Court erred: defendant never clearly and unequivocally waived counsel, was not warned he might be forced to proceed pro se, and did not engage in the egregious misconduct required for forfeiture | Reversed: court violated Sixth Amendment by failing to warn or conduct the statutory inquiry before requiring self‑representation; new trial required |
Key Cases Cited
- Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 (1963) (right to counsel in serious criminal cases)
- Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (1975) (defendant must knowingly and intelligently waive counsel to proceed pro se)
- Bullock v. State, 316 N.C. 180 (1986) (trial court must comply with § 15A‑1242 before trying a defendant without counsel)
- McCrowre v. State, 312 N.C. 478 (1984) (no implied waiver where defendant expected to retain counsel and statutory inquiry was not conducted)
- Montgomery v. State, 138 N.C. App. 521 (2000) (forfeiture of counsel limited to severe misconduct)
- Wray v. State, 206 N.C. App. 354 (2010) (forfeiture doctrine is cabined to egregious conduct)
- United States v. Goldberg, 67 F.3d 1092 (3d Cir. 1995) (distinguishes voluntary Faretta waiver, forfeiture for severe misconduct, and "waiver by conduct" after warning)