State v. Fenner, 289PA23

Defendant Kaylore Fenner was charged with multiple serious felonies for kidnapping, assaulting, and raping his mother.
Prior to trial, Fenner requested to represent himself, initiating the required colloquy under N.C.G.S. § 15A-1242 regarding waiver of counsel.
The trial court informed Fenner he faced 75-175 years in prison, although he was ultimately sentenced to 121-178 years, and could have faced multiple life sentences under the worst-case scenario.
On appeal, Fenner argued the court miscalculated the range of punishments and did not properly fulfill the statutory duty to inform him of the consequences of self-representation.
The Court of Appeals found no error, reasoning Fenner was aware he faced a life-equivalent sentence regardless of the precise number.
The North Carolina Supreme Court granted review to clarify statutory requirements and whether such a miscalculation constitutes reversible error.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of colloquy under N.C.G.S. § 15A-1242	Fenner: Colloquy failed; court erred in calculating punishment range for all charges	State: Fenner was advised of a life-equivalent punishment, satisfying the statute	Court: Statutory compliance met if both the advised and actual range = life equivalent
Necessity to cover all charges/lesser included offenses	Fenner: Court should inform on all charges, not just most serious	State: Focus on most serious charges sufficed given life-equivalent exposure	Court: Best practice is to inform on all charges, but statute not violated in this case
Appropriateness of prosecutor’s information during colloquy	Fenner: Only court may provide sentencing range, not prosecutor	State: Prosecutor input is appropriate if court conducts inquiry	Court: Court responsible for inquiry, but asking State for info is permissible
Appeal of constitutional claims not raised in petition	Fenner: Sought to raise Sixth Amendment issues	State: Not preserved for review	Court: Constitutional issues not properly before Court; review limited to statutory claim

Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (1975) (establishes right to self-representation and requirements for waiver of counsel)
State v. LeGrande, 346 N.C. 718 (1997) (addresses self-representation and waiver of counsel)
State v. Mems, 281 N.C. 658 (1972) (defines constitutional right to self-representation)
State v. Moore, 362 N.C. 319 (2008) (outlines best practices for waiver-of-counsel colloquy)