State v. Blakeney
| Decision Date | 16 February 2016 |
| Docket Number | No. COA15–622.,COA15–622. |
| Citation | 245 N.C.App. 452,782 S.E.2d 88 |
| Court | North Carolina Court of Appeals |
| Parties | STATE of North Carolina, Plaintiff, v. Jonathan Brandon BLAKENEY, Defendant. |
Attorney General, Roy Cooper, by Assistant Attorney General, Terence Friedman, for the State.
Robinson Bradshaw & Hinson, P.A., Charlotte, by Andrew A. Kasper, for defendant-appellant.
Jonathan Blakeney (defendant) appeals from judgment entered upon a jury verdict finding him guilty of possession of a firearm by a felon and of having attainted the status of an habitual felon. On appeal defendant argues that the trial court erred by requiring defendant to represent himself at trial, on the grounds that defendant neither asked to proceed pro se nor engaged in the type of serious misconduct that would result in an immediate forfeiture of defendant's right to counsel without a prior warning. After careful consideration, we agree.
On 17 September 2011, deputies with the Union County Sheriff's Department were dispatched to 3921 Blakeney Road to investigate an assault reported at that location. During the investigation, defendant was arrested and charged with possession of a firearm by a felon. After being informed of his Miranda rights, defendant provided law enforcement officers with a statement admitting to possession of a firearm. On 7 November 2011, defendant was indicted for possession of a firearm by a felon. On 30 January 2012, defendant signed a waiver of the right to assigned counsel in three cases, including the charge of possession of a firearm by a felon that is the subject of the present appeal.
On 4 November 2013, more than two years after the incident giving rise to the charge of possession of a firearm by a felon, defendant was indicted for attaining the status of an habitual felon. On 6 November 2014, three years after the incident underlying this appeal, the trial court entered an order striking a previously entered order for arrest and continuing the trial of defendant's case until 15 December 2014. Documentation is not included in the record, but the parties agree that defendant had failed to appear for trial in early November, 2014.
The charges against defendant came on for trial on 15 December 2014. Prior to trial, defendant's counsel, Mr. Vernon Cloud, moved to withdraw as defendant's attorney. Mr. Cloud stated that defendant had spoken rudely to him and that defendant no longer wanted him to represent defendant at the pending trial. Defendant agreed that he did not want Mr. Cloud to represent him on the charges of possession of a firearm by a felon and having the status of an habitual felon, but stated that he wished to retain Mr. Cloud as his counsel on other charges then pending against defendant. Defendant did not indicate in any way that he wished to represent himself, but told the trial court that he intended to hire a different attorney, specifically saying, In response, the trial court told defendant that he had a right to fire his lawyer, but that "the trial is still going." The trial court and defendant then had the following discussion:
Two days later, on 17 December 2014, defendant's case was called for trial, and defendant and the trial court had the following dialog:
Thereafter, the trial court explains to defendant the process of jury selection, until defendant interrupts:
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Harvin
...where "a defendant may no longer have the right to be represented by counsel": (1) waiver and (2) forfeiture. State v. Blakeney , 245 N.C. App. 452, 460, 782 S.E.2d 88, 93 (2016) ; see also State v. Thomas , 331 N.C. 671, 673, 417 S.E.2d 473, 475 (1992) ; Simpkins , 373 N.C. at 541, 838 S.E......
-
State v. Lindsey
...2018 session.2 There are situations in which a defendant may lose the right to counsel through conduct. State v. Blakeney , 245 N.C. App. 452, 460-61, 782 S.E.2d 88, 93-94 (2016). "Although the loss of counsel due to defendant's own actions is often referred to as a waiver of the right to c......
-
State v. Simpkins
..."engage[ ] in such serious misconduct as to warrant forfeiture of the right to counsel." Id. at 852 (quoting State v. Blakeney , 245 N.C. App. 452, 468, 782 S.E.2d 88, 98 (2016) ) (alteration in original). The State appealed to this Court on the basis of the dissent, which concluded the opp......
-
In re T.A.M.
...conduct on the part of the litigant. In re K.M.W. , 376 N.C. at 209, 851 S.E.2d 849 (cleaned up); see also State v. Blakeney , 245 N.C. App. 452, 461–62, 782 S.E.2d 88 (2016) (stating that "forfeiture has generally been limited to situations involving ‘severe misconduct’ and specifically to......