State v. Simpkins, 838 S.E.2d 439

Background

On July 4, 2016 Simpkins was arrested for offenses related to driving on a suspended license; he was convicted in district court and appealed to superior court for a new trial.
At superior-court trial on June 7, 2017 Simpkins appeared without counsel, questioned the court’s jurisdiction, and said he wanted counsel "not paid for by the State."
Within about 20 minutes the trial court concluded Simpkins had waived counsel, appointed standby counsel, and later Simpkins released standby counsel and proceeded pro se.
The jury convicted Simpkins of resisting a public officer and failing to exhibit/surrender a license; he appealed claiming the court failed to perform the N.C.G.S. § 15A-1242 colloquy required for a valid waiver of counsel.
The Court of Appeals vacated, concluding Simpkins did not forfeit his right to counsel and thus the statutory/federal constitutional colloquy was required. The North Carolina Supreme Court affirmed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Simpkins)	Held
Whether Simpkins forfeited his right to counsel so that § 15A-1242 colloquy was unnecessary	Forfeiture: Simpkins repeatedly challenged court authority, refused to retain counsel, and obstructed proceedings	No forfeiture; record shows engagement and cooperation; waiver colloquy was required and did not occur	Court: Forfeiture doctrine exists but not met here; no forfeiture, so § 15A-1242 inquiry required; reversal and new trial
Whether North Carolina recognizes forfeiture of the right to counsel	Forfeiture available where defendant’s egregious misconduct totally frustrates right to counsel	If recognized, must be narrowly applied; ordinary disruptive or frivolous argument insufficient	Court: Forfeiture may be recognized in egregious, obstructive or violent conduct that makes representation impossible; limited doctrine affirmed
Whether trial court complied with N.C.G.S. § 15A-1242 before allowing pro se representation	Trial court did enough given prior district-court notations and short pretrial exchange	Court did not conduct the mandatory ‘‘thorough inquiry’’ to ensure waiver was knowing, intelligent, voluntary	Court: Trial court failed to fulfill § 15A-1242 requirements; colloquy required and absent; reversal warranted
Whether standby counsel substitutes for the right to appointed counsel without a proper waiver	Standby counsel and quick appointment cured any defect	Standby counsel is not an adequate substitute for the required colloquy and full appointment	Court: Standby counsel does not replace the § 15A-1242 waiver process; cannot cure lack of knowing waiver

Key Cases Cited

State v. Moore, 362 N.C. 319, 661 S.E.2d 722 (N.C. 2008) (waiver must be knowing, intelligent, voluntary and court must inquire)
State v. Thomas, 331 N.C. 671, 417 S.E.2d 473 (N.C. 1992) (defendant must clearly and unequivocally request self-representation and court must ensure effective waiver)
State v. Pruitt, 322 N.C. 600, 369 S.E.2d 590 (N.C. 1988) (statutory ‘‘thorough inquiry’’ requirement)
State v. Dunlap, 318 N.C. 384, 348 S.E.2d 801 (N.C. 1986) (standby counsel not a substitute for an effective waiver)
State v. Montgomery, 138 N.C. App. 521, 530 S.E.2d 66 (N.C. Ct. App. 2000) (forfeiture where defendant’s conduct made representation impossible)
State v. Blakeney, 245 N.C. App. 452, 782 S.E.2d 88 (N.C. Ct. App. 2016) (forfeiture limited to egregious misconduct that undermines right’s purpose)
Moran v. Burbine, 475 U.S. 412 (U.S. 1986) (purpose of right to counsel is to prevent accused from being left to own devices)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (right to counsel protects reliability of outcome and fairness of trial)