Criminal Practice – Right to Counsel – Waiver – Delay Tactics – Forfeiture

State v. Schumann (Lawyers Weekly No. 011-050-18, 22 pp.) (Robert Hunter Jr., J.) Appealed from Columbus County Superior Court (Douglas Sasser, J.) N.C. App.

Holding: Although defendant complained that he could not find an attorney to represent him, (1) he signed two waivers of counsel; (2) he denied that money was an issue; (3) he was given years to find counsel; (4) at each stage the trial court counseled defendant about his right to an attorney, including his right to appointed counsel; (5) the trial court also repeatedly counseled defendant about the complexity of handling his own jury trial and the fact that the judge would not be able to help him; and (6) the trial court repeatedly addressed the seriousness of the charges and advised defendant that a conviction likely meant a life sentence. Despite all this, defendant proceeded to represent himself at trial. Defendant waived his right to counsel.

We find no error in defendant’s convictions of four counts of trafficking 14 grams or more, but less than 28 grams of opium or heroin and four counts of trafficking 28 grams or more of opium or heroin.

We agree with the state that, even if defendant could fairly argue that the trial court failed to advise him of his rights in waiving counsel and the hazards of proceeding pro se, he forfeited his right to counsel by his conduct.

Defendant employed extended delaying tactics. First, he waived his right to assigned counsel in 2013. The trial court repeatedly advised defendant on the seriousness of the charges and informed defendant a conviction could lead to a life sentence due to defendant’s age.

Time after time, defendant said he intended to hire his own attorney. Defendant made almost monthly appearances in court over a 10-month period, and consistently told the court he wished to hire his own attorney.

During these appearances, the trial court asked defendant at least twice if he needed appointed counsel. Defendant answered by claiming to have sufficient funds to hire an attorney.

Additionally, the trial court continued defendant’s case several times to give defendant’s attorney time to prepare since defendant claimed the attorneys he met with did not have adequate time to prepare for trial.

We determine defendant’s conduct resulted in the absence of defense counsel which constitutes a forfeiture of the right to counsel.

Finally, the trial court followed the parameters set forth in G.S. § 15A-1242 in determining defendant unequivocally elected to proceed pro se.

No error.