248 N.C. App. 729 - State v. Garrison’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 state decisions

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 2 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “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 I, §§ 19, 23 of the North Carolina Constitution. Our appellate courts have recognized two circumstances, however, under which a defendant may no longer have the right to be represented by counsel. First, a defendant may voluntarily waive the right to be represented by counsel and instead proceed pro se . Waiver of the right to counsel and election to proceed pro se must be expressed clearly and unequivocally. Once a defendant clearly and unequivocally states that he wants to proceed pro se , the trial court must determine whether the defendant knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waives the right to in-court representation by counsel. A trial court's inquiry will satisfy this constitutional requirement if conducted pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 15A-1242. This statute provides: 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.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 257 N.C. App. 195 - State v. Pena · 250 N.C. App. 412 - State v. Faulkner

2. “a trial court's decision to permit a defendant to represent himself de novo .”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 257 N.C. App. 195 - State v. Pena · 250 N.C. App. 412 - State v. Faulkner

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.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 257 N.C. App. 195 - State v. Pena