State v. Nunnally,, 216A25

A Durham County jury convicted Nunnally of possession of a firearm by a felon and two misdemeanor assaults, and he received consecutive sentences. 1
Before trial, Nunnally stipulated that he had a prior felony conviction and later stipulated on the record that he possessed a firearm during the incident. 2
At closing, defense counsel focused on defeating intent to kill on the assault charges and did not expressly argue the firearm-possession charge. 3
The Court of Appeals majority remanded for an evidentiary hearing on whether Nunnally knowingly consented to any admission of guilt by counsel. 4
The Supreme Court reversed, holding the record showed consent and counsel did not explicitly or implicitly concede guilt beyond the stipulations. 5

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did counsel make a Harbison-type admission of guilt? 6	State said counsel only argued intent, not guilt.	Nunnally said counsel implicitly admitted firearm possession.	No; closing stayed within stipulations and did not concede guilt. 7
Did Nunnally knowingly consent to counsel's concessions? 8	State said two colloquies showed express consent.	Nunnally said the record did not show informed consent.	Yes; he expressly authorized both stipulations on the record. 9
Was an evidentiary hearing required under Harbison? 10	State said no hearing was needed because consent and no concession were shown.	Nunnally said the record was unclear and a hearing was required.	No; the Court of Appeals remand was reversed. 11

State v. Harbison, 315 N.C. 175 (N.C. 1985) (counsel's unauthorized admission of guilt is per se ineffective assistance 12)
State v. McAllister, 375 N.C. 455 (N.C. 2020) (Harbison extends to implied concessions without prior authorization 13)
State v. Braswell, 312 N.C. 553 (N.C. 1985) (North Carolina adopts the Strickland ineffective-assistance standard 14)
State v. Clark, 380 N.C. 204 (N.C. 2022) (ineffective-assistance claims are reviewed de novo 15)
State v. Malachi, 371 N.C. 719 (N.C. 2018) (Strickland requires fair trial free of prejudicial error 16)
State v. McNeill, 346 N.C. 233 (N.C. 1997) (no Harbison error where defendant knowingly stipulated and counsel argued consistently with the stipulation 17)
State v. Matthews, 358 N.C. 102 (N.C. 2004) (no Harbison error where record shows defendant knew counsel would make the concession 18)
Florida v. Nixon, 543 U.S. 175 (U.S. 2004) (rejected automatic prejudice; concession claims generally require Strickland analysis 19)
McCoy v. Louisiana, 584 U.S. 414 (U.S. 2018) (certain autonomy decisions belong to the client, including whether to maintain innocence 20)