State v. Simpkins, 826 S.E.2d 845

In July 2016 Officer Middlebrook stopped a vehicle and learned the registered owner, Jeffery Martaez Simpkins, had a suspended license and an outstanding warrant; Simpkins refused to produce license/registration and was arrested.
Simpkins was first tried in district court (no transcript in record); records show he twice refused to sign waiver-of-counsel forms and was convicted of resisting a public officer and failing to carry a registration card; he appealed to superior court.
At superior court, Simpkins repeatedly questioned the court’s jurisdiction, declined to sign waivers or plead, asked for counsel "not paid for by the State," and initially accepted standby counsel but later waived standby counsel and proceeded pro se at trial.
The superior court did not explicitly advise Simpkins of the statutory "range of permissible punishments" as required by N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-1242 before he proceeded pro se.
The jury convicted Simpkins of resisting a public officer and failing to exhibit/surrender his license; Simpkins appealed, arguing the trial court failed to comply with the § 15A-1242 inquiry and that he did not validly waive counsel.

Issue	State's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the superior court’s failure to perform the full § 15A-1242 advisement (including the range of punishments) requires a new trial	Court need not give full § 15A-1242 advisement because defendant forfeited the right to counsel by his conduct	Trial court erred by not conducting the § 15A-1242 inquiry (didn’t advise range of punishments); defendant did not validly waive counsel	Reversed and remanded for new trial: court failed to comply with § 15A-1242 and defendant had not validly waived counsel
Whether defendant forfeited his right to counsel by misconduct/dilatory tactics so that § 15A-1242 advisement was unnecessary	Defendant’s repeated jurisdictional challenges, refusal to cooperate, and delay tactics amounted to forfeiture of counsel	Defendant’s conduct did not reach the egregious level required for forfeiture; he wasn’t warned he would lose counsel	Forfeiture not found: conduct did not rise to the severe, egregious standard and no warning was given; hybrid waiver-by-conduct also inapplicable

State v. Blakeney, 245 N.C. App. 452 (2016) (distinguishes voluntary waiver, forfeiture by serious misconduct, and waiver-by-conduct; requires warning before treating dilatory conduct as waiver)
State v. Sorrow, 213 N.C. App. 571 (2011) (trial court’s § 15A-1242 inquiry is mandatory; failure to conduct it is prejudicial error)
State v. Bullock, 316 N.C. 180 (1986) (defendant not entitled to be treated as having voluntarily waived counsel where record shows he intended to obtain counsel and had no choice but to proceed)
State v. McCrowre, 312 N.C. 478 (1984) (a defendant is entitled to a new trial where the § 15A-1242 inquiry is not conducted and the record does not show an intent to proceed without counsel)