State v. Mee
756 S.E.2d 103
N.C. Ct. App.2014Background
- Defendant Mee was arrested January 5, 2012 for trafficking in cocaine, marijuana, and maintaining a dwelling for keeping and selling controlled substances.
- Over fourteen months, Mee repeatedly challenged representation, firing and retaining counsel, and asserting lack of court jurisdiction.
- Mee waived appointed counsel at first appearance but later refused to clearly indicate wishes regarding representation, leading to appointed standby counsel and later trial proceedings.
- On March 25, 2013 Mee refused to participate in the trial, was held in contempt, and was absent during the trial despite the court’s efforts to proceed pro se or with counsel.
- The trial court found Mee forfeited the right to counsel due to willful, obstructive conduct and proceeded with trial in his absence.
- On April 30, 2013 the sentence was corrected, and Mee was convicted of trafficking cocaine, possession of marijuana, and maintaining a dwelling for keeping and selling controlled substances.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Mee forfeited the right to counsel by his conduct | Mee’s actions obstructed proceedings and justified forfeiture | Forfeiture requires clear misconduct beyond argumentative jurisdiction challenges | Mee forfeited the right to counsel; court not required to conduct 15A-1242 inquiry |
| Whether the trial could proceed in Mee's absence | Court could proceed once right to counsel was forfeited and Mee refused to participate | Trial cannot proceed if defendant refuses to participate or acknowledge jurisdiction | Trial could proceed in Mee’s absence after finding purposeful disruption and forfeiture |
| Whether the standard from Montgomery governed the forfeiture analysis | Montgomery supports forfeiture for purposeful delay and disruption | Montgomery does not apply or require different inquiry under 15A-1242 | Montgomery applied; no need for 15A-1242 inquiry in forfeiture context |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Montgomery, 138 N.C. App. 521 (2000) (forfeiture of right to counsel for delaying trial)
- State v. McFadden, 292 N.C. 609 (1977) (requires knowledge of waiver for valid waiver of counsel)
- United States v. Goldberg, 67 F.3d 1092 (3d Cir. 1995) (defining forfeiture and rights related to defense)
- State v. Leyshon, 211 N.C. App. 511 (2011) (defendant forfeited right to counsel by obstructing trial)
- State v. Boyd, 200 N.C. App. 97 (2009) (forfeiture when defendant delays and obstructs trial)