State v. GarrisonÂ

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NORTH CAROLINA
No. COA15-1293
Filed: 2 August 2016
Mecklenburg County, No. 14 CRS 4423-4426
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
v.
DAMON J. GARRISON, Defendant.
Appeal by defendant from Judgment entered 8 May 2015 by Judge Linwood O.
Foust in Mecklenburg County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 8 June
2016.
Attorney General Roy Cooper, by Special Deputy Attorney General Hilda
Burnett-Baker, for the State.
Appellate Defender Glenn Gerding, by Assistant Appellate Defender Nicholas
C. Woomer-Deters, for defendant.
ELMORE, Judge.
Damon Garrison (defendant) appeals from his convictions, arguing that the
trial court did not engage in the proper inquiry under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-1242
(2015) before permitting him to proceed pro se. After careful review, we agree and
conclude that defendant is entitled to a new trial.
I. Background
On 3 February 2014, defendant was indicted for possession of drug
STATE V. GARRISON
Opinion of the Court
paraphernalia, felony possession of a schedule VI controlled substance,1 maintaining
a place to keep controlled substances, and manufacturing a controlled substance.
Defendant was initially provided with court-appointed counsel. On 17 July 2014,
however, defendant’s counsel filed a motion to withdraw, stating that defendant
“would like to present the strategy.” After a hearing, the Honorable Lisa C. Bell
allowed the motion.
The case came on for trial at the 6 May 2015 Criminal Session of the Superior
Court of Mecklenburg County, the Honorable Linwood O. Foust presiding. Defendant
was not represented by counsel. On 8 May 2015, the jury returned verdicts finding
defendant guilty of all charges. The trial court suspended defendant’s sentence of
four to fourteen months’ imprisonment and placed him on twelve months’ supervised
probation. Defendant timely appeals.
II. Analysis
Defendant argues that the trial court did not comply with the requirements of
N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-1242 before permitting him to proceed pro se.
We review a trial court’s decision to permit a defendant to represent himself
de novo. State v. Watlington, 216 N.C. App. 388, 393–94, 716 S.E.2d 671, 675 (2011).
“A criminal defendant’s right to representation by counsel in serious criminal matters
is guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article
1 Prior to trial, the trial court granted the State’s motion to amend this charge to misdemeanor
possession.
-2-
STATE V. GARRISON
Opinion of the Court
I, §§ 19, 23 of the North Carolina Constitution.” State v. Hyatt, 132 N.C. App. 697,
702, 513 S.E.2d 90, 94 (1999) (citing Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 (1963)). A
criminal defendant also “ ‘has a right to handle his own case without interference by,
or the assistance of, counsel forced upon him against his wishes.’ ” Id. (quoting State
v. Mems, 281 N.C. 658, 670–71, 190 S.E.2d 164, 172 (1972)). “The trial court,
however, must insure that constitutional and statutory standards are satisfied before
allowing a criminal defendant to waive in-court representation.” Id. (citing State v.
Thomas, 331 N.C. 671, 673, 417 S.E.2d 473, 475 (1992)).
Relevant here, N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-1242 (2015) states,
A defendant may be permitted at his election to proceed in
the trial of his case without the assistance of counsel only
after the trial judge makes thorough inquiry and is
satisfied that the defendant:
(1) Has been clearly advised of his right to the assistance
of counsel, including his right to the assignment of counsel
when he is so entitled;
(2) Understands and appreciates the consequences of this
decision; and
(3) Comprehends the nature of the charges and proceedings
and the range of permissible punishments.
This Court has previously held that “[t]he inquiry is a mandatory one, and
failure to conduct it is prejudicial error.” State v. Godwin, 95 N.C. App. 565, 572, 383
S.E.2d 234, 238 (1989) (citing State v. Bullock, 316 N.C. 180, 185–86, 340 S.E.2d 106,
108–09 (1986)); see also State v. Stanback, 137 N.C. App. 583, 586, 529 S.E.2d 229,
231 (2000) (holding that “because it is prejudicial error to allow a criminal defendant
-3-
STATE V. GARRISON
Opinion of the Court
to proceed pro se without making the inquiry required by section 15A-1242,
Defendant must be granted a new trial”).
Defendant argues that the trial court did not conduct any of the three required
inquiries under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-1242(1)–(3). The State concedes error under
N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-1242(3), noting that defendant was not advised of the range of
permissible punishments and admitting that a new trial is warranted. After a
thorough review of the transcripts, we agree and conclude that the trial court failed
to make an inquiry sufficient to satisfy itself that defendant comprehended the range
of permissible punishments under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-1242(3). Accordingly, as the
inquiry is a mandatory one, the trial court’s failure to satisfy the statutory
requirements before permitting defendant to proceed pro se constitutes prejudicial
error. See Godwin, 95 N.C. App. at 572, 383 S.E.2d at 238. Because we conclude that
defendant is entitled to a new trial, we do not reach his second argument on a
challenged jury instruction.
III. Conclusion
The trial court failed to comply with N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-1242 before
permitting defendant to proceed pro se. As a result, defendant is entitled to a new
trial.
NEW TRIAL.
Judges DAVIS and DIETZ concur.
-4-