State v. Harvin

Decision Date04 November 2022
Docket Number485PA19
Citation382 N.C. 566,879 S.E.2d 147
Parties STATE of North Carolina v. Cashaun K. HARVIN
CourtNorth Carolina Supreme Court

Joshua H. Stein, Attorney General, by Marissa K. Jensen, Assistant Attorney General, for the State-appellant.

Marilyn G. Ozer, Chapel Hill, for defendant-appellee.

MORGAN, Justice.

¶ 1 In this case we consider whether defendant Cashaun K. Harvin was wrongly denied his constitutional right to counsel when the trial court compelled him to proceed pro se to trial on multiple serious felonies, including first-degree murder. At the conclusion of the trial, defendant was found guilty of all charges. This Court's review of the record in this case does not support the trial court's determination that defendant's actions were sufficiently obstructive to constitute a forfeiture of defendant's right to counsel. Accordingly, defendant is entitled to a new trial, and we affirm the decision of the Court of Appeals which vacated the judgments entered upon defendant's convictions.

I. Factual background and procedural history
A. Defendant's alleged crimes, resulting indictments, and proceedings prior to defendant's trial date

¶ 2 The Court's resolution of the matters presented by this case is predicated primarily upon the facts and circumstances which occurred following defendant's arrest and during the pretrial proceedings in his case, and therefore, we present only a brief summary of the facts regarding defendant's alleged serious crimes. The evidence at defendant's trial tended to show the following: On 2 February 2015, Tyler Greenfield arranged to purchase marijuana from the victim in this case, Robert Scott, Jr., as a pretext for Greenfield and defendant to rob Scott. Scott instructed Greenfield to come to Scott's apartment for the drug transaction and was surprised when defendant arrived with Greenfield. Nonetheless, Scott allowed both Greenfield and defendant to enter the living room of Scott's home. Once inside the residence, Greenfield produced a handgun and demanded money from Scott.

¶ 3 Unbeknownst to defendant and Greenfield, Scott's girlfriend Azariah Brewer had been resting in a bedroom of the apartment. When she overheard the confrontation taking place in the living room, Brewer retrieved a gun. When defendant, armed with a handgun, entered the bedroom where Scott kept a safe, defendant saw Brewer and yelled, "She has a gun!"2 Greenfield ordered Brewer to bring her gun into the living room and threatened to shoot Scott if Brewer resisted. Brewer complied and placed her gun onto a coffee table in the living room. Scott then attempted to grab the gun from the coffee table, at which point defendant and Greenfield both began shooting, ultimately firing twelve rounds of ammunition in total. Scott was able to shoot at least once, striking Greenfield. Scott and Brewer were both shot several times, and Scott died from his injuries.

¶ 4 Defendant, who was seventeen years of age, was summoned from his high school classroom and arrested on 6 February 2015. Attorney Bruce Mason was appointed as defendant's counsel on 9 February 2015. On 26 May 2015, defendant was indicted on charges of first-degree murder, attempted first-degree murder, attempted robbery with a dangerous weapon, and assault with a deadly weapon with intent to kill inflicting serious injury. On 25 July 2016, Attorney Mason withdrew due to circumstances unrelated to defendant. During his approximately eighteen months of representation of defendant, Mason made three filings: a discovery motion on or about 18 February 2015, an objection to joinder of defendant's and Greenfield's charges, and a motion to substitute counsel on 25 July 2016 in which Mason's law partner Alex Nicely was recommended for appointment.

¶ 5 Upon Mason's withdrawal, attorney Alex Nicely was assigned as substitute counsel. During the nearly ten months that he represented defendant, Nicely filed numerous motions on defendant's behalf, including a motion to suppress certain statements that defendant made to law enforcement officers. On 31 October 2016, the New Hanover County grand jury indicted defendant on the same charges recounted above by means of the return of a superseding indictment. In December 2016, the State agreed to a sentence which included probation for a cooperating witness in the case in exchange for that witness's testimony at defendant's trial.

¶ 6 On 20 March 2017, after the conclusion of Greenfield's trial on charges arising from the robbery and killing of Scott and the shooting of Brewer,3 the New Hanover County grand jury issued a second superseding indictment, charging defendant with the same four offenses included in the original indictment and the first superseding indictment—first-degree murder, attempted first-degree murder, attempted robbery with a dangerous weapon, and assault with a deadly weapon with intent to kill inflicting serious injury—along with additional charges of robbery with a dangerous weapon and conspiracy to commit robbery with a dangerous weapon. On 12 May 2017, the State offered defendant a plea agreement which, if defendant had accepted it, would have potentially resulted in defendant serving a sentence of 144 to 185 months in prison. Defendant rejected the plea offer. On the same date of 12 May 2017, Nicely withdrew as defense counsel due to circumstances unrelated to defendant, and the trial court then appointed attorney J. Merritt Wagoner to represent defendant. The State announced that it was ready to proceed with the trial of defendant and that it had hoped to schedule the matter for the 5 June 2017 trial calendar; however, the State and the trial court agreed that in light of defendant's new counsel just having been appointed, such a trial date of 5 June 2017 was not realistic and the parties looked instead to an administrative calendar date of 14 July 2017 which focused on pending murder cases.

¶ 7 On 28 September 2017, Wagoner filed a motion to withdraw as defense counsel, stating that defendant had asked Wagoner to withdraw and asserting that "the attorney client relationship with this defendant has been irreparably severed."4 Wagoner's motion to withdraw was granted, and Shawn Robert Evans was immediately appointed as replacement counsel on 28 September 2017 to represent defendant. On 8 December 2017, Evans filed a motion seeking to withdraw as defendant's attorney, relating that defendant had verbally fired Evans on that date and representing that there had "been a complete breakdown of the attorney-client relationship" with defendant.

¶ 8 At a 12 December 2017 hearing before the Honorable Ebern T. Watson, III, Evans's motion to withdraw as defendant's court-appointed attorney was addressed. Defendant's trial had already been scheduled to begin on 28 January 2018. Evans explained to the trial court that defendant had expressed a desire to represent himself at trial; defendant confirmed Evans's statements to the trial court. Attorney Evans's motion to withdraw as defense counsel was allowed by the trial court. Defendant stated to the trial court that he desired assistance from standby counsel, and attorney Paul Mediratta was appointed by the trial court to serve in the role of standby counsel on behalf of defendant. Also at the 12 December 2017 hearing, the State registered its opposition to any postponement of defendant's 28 January 2018 trial date given that the case had already been pending for three years. However, the State did not divulge to the trial court that the State had elected to try Greenfield before bringing defendant's case to trial or that the State—the party which typically scheduled trial dates—had first noted that defendant's case was ready for trial in May 2017, some seven months previously. The trial court stated in open court that it did "not find at this point in time that [defendant] has vacated his right to request counsel, nor that any of his actions have forfeited his opportunity to have assigned counsel."

¶ 9 On 28 December 2017, defendant, defendant's standby counsel Mediratta, and the State appeared before the trial court with Judge Phyllis M. Gorham again presiding. The State noted that defendant had asked previously to proceed pro se, but the State expressed concern that the mandatory inquiry set forth in N.C.G.S. § 15A1242 regarding defendant's election to represent himself may not have been fully satisfied. Accordingly, the State asked that the trial court undertake the statutory inquiry. The trial court thereupon engaged in the statutorily required colloquy with defendant. Defendant indicated to the trial court that he understood the implications of representing himself5 but expressed concern about the legal resources to which he had access while incarcerated and also noted that some of the charges pending against him were new and unfamiliar to defendant, citing defendant's past interactions with his appointed counsel. The State acknowledged that it intended to hand deliver updated discovery materials, including "the most recent indictment," to defendant during the hearing. In addition, defendant's standby counsel had alerted the State that defendant desired a continuance. Although the State opposed a continuance, the trial court nonetheless postponed defendant's trial date to 23 April 2018.

¶ 10 On 26 March 2018, defendant again appeared before the trial court, with the Honorable Joshua Willey presiding. The State informed the trial court that it had offered a plea agreement to defendant which would have resulted in a sentence of 144 to 192 months and defense countered with a possible sentence of "about ten years which would be 120 months" for defendant. Defendant rejected the State's plea offer and instead, moved to continue the trial.6 The State suggested that the motion to continue the trial be considered by Judge Gorham as the assigned trial judge. Defendant then responded with a motion to have Judge Gorham removed from defendant's case due to Judge Gorham's...

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 cases
  • In re L.N.H.
    • United States
    • North Carolina Supreme Court
    • 4 November 2022
  • In re C.P.
    • United States
    • North Carolina Court of Appeals
    • 6 June 2023

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT