¶1dissenting.
¶2I respectfully dissent from the majority opinion that defendant’s constitutional right to an attorney was violated. Defendant’s request *779for assigned counsel following a waiver was not for good cause; therefore the trial court’s denial of the request was not in error.
¶3“A waiver of counsel or decision to proceed pro se is good and sufficient until the trial [is] finally terminated, unless the defendant himself makes known to the court that he desires to withdraw the waiver and makes a showing that the change of mind to proceed (with or without an attorney) was for some good cause.” State v. Hoover, 174 N.C. App. 596, 598, 621 S.E.2d 303, 304 (2005) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted) (emphasis added). The purpose behind the requirement of showing good cause to withdraw a waiver of counsel is that, in the absence of good cause, a defendant would be “permitted to control the course of litigation and sidetrack the trial.” State v. Smith, 27 N.C. App. 379, 381, 219 S.E.2d 277, 279 (1975).
¶4As Hooverindicates, to withdraw the waiver of counsel the defendant must do two things: make known to the court the desire to withdraw the waiver, and make a showing that the change of mind was for good cause. Hoover, 174 N.C. App. at 598, 621 S.E.2d at 304. It is on this second requirement that defendant has failed to meet the requirements set out in State v. Hoover.
¶5The majority’s reliance on State v. Sexton, 141 N.C. App. 344, 539 S.E.2d 675 (2000) is misplaced. In Sextonthe defendant made his request for appointment of counsel because he “lost [his] job[,]” Id.,141 N.C. App. at 347, 539 S.E.2d at 677. This Court, in a unanimous opinion, held that his request was for good cause. Id.,141 N.C. App. at 344, 539 S.E.2d at 675. The defendant in Sextonfaced a dramatic change in circumstances that modified his ability to afford an attorney.
¶6Unlike the defendant in Sexton, the defendant in the case before us has not faced a change in circumstances that was not, or should not, have been anticipated. He has not shown that his circumstances had changed from the time he waived his right to appointed counsel and the time he attempted to withdraw that waiver.
¶7We need not make an inquiry into the motives of the defendant to decide if he intended to “delay and frustrate the orderly processes of the trial court.” We need only determine if defendant met his burden of showing his request for a withdraw of waiver of counsel was for good cause. Defendant failed to meet that burden, therefore the trial court’s decision should be affirmed.