State v. Watlington
216 N.C. App. 388
| N.C. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Watlington was charged with DWI, possession of marijuana, DWI on revoked license, habitual impaired driving, and being a habitual felon.
- At trial start, he pled guilty to driving while revoked; jury later found not guilty of simple possession and guilty of DWI.
- Court treated stipulation to three prior impaired driving charges as proof for habitual impaired driving conviction.
- Trial proceeded to habitual felon phase; Watlington failed to appear, resulting in a mistrial on that phase.
- Prayer for judgment on the DWI-under-revoked and habitual DWI was continued until arrest and sentencing; prayer for judgment on habitual felon was pending retrial.
- Watlington later requested to represent himself pro se; the court discharged counsel and allowed self-representation with standby assistance; trial proceeded pro se for habitual felon phase; a new trial was later granted on that indictment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the waiver of counsel was valid under § 15A-1242 | Watlington contends no thorough inquiry was conducted. | Watlington claims he clearly elected to proceed pro se and should be allowed to do so. | New trial granted for habitual felon indictment due to improper inquiry. |
| Whether the trial court erred in counting a federal conviction as a class G felony for sentencing | State argues the federal conviction should count for sentencing as class G. | Watlington asserts lack of sufficient evidence of substantial similarity to North Carolina offenses. | On resentencing, substantial-similarity determination required; any insufficient evidence counts as Class I with two points. |
| Whether the State could prove substantial similarity for purposes of sentencing on appeal | State contends it may prove substantial similarity post hoc. | Record lacks sufficient information to establish similarity. | We do not decide on the merits here; insufficient information requires remand for proper proof. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Whitfield, 170 N.C.App. 618 (2005) (de novo review of waiver of counsel standard)
- State v. Evans, 153 N.C.App. 313 (2002) (waiver of counsel standard; de novo considerations)
- State v. Cox, 164 N.C.App. 399 (2004) (written waiver not substitute for § 15A-1242 inquiry)
- State v. Hyatt, 132 N.C.App. 697 (1999) (inadequate § 15A-1242 inquiry requires new trial)
- State v. White, 78 N.C.App. 741 (1986) (clear indication plus required inquiry; error to proceed without counsel)
- State v. Gordon, 79 N.C.App. 623 (1986) (no evidence defendant informed of charges and penalties; proceed at risk)
- State v. Henderson, 201 N.C.App. 381 (2009) (out-of-state conviction substantial-similarity assessment not shown by record)