{
  "id": 8522820,
  "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. WALTER CLARK LAMB",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Lamb",
  "decision_date": "1991-08-06",
  "docket_number": "No. 9118SC127",
  "first_page": "646",
  "last_page": "649",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "103 N.C. App. 646"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "N.C. Ct. App.",
    "id": 14983,
    "name": "North Carolina Court of Appeals"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 5,
    "name_long": "North Carolina",
    "name": "N.C."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "373 S.E.2d 553",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1988,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "parenthetical": "where an inquiry under N.C.G.S. \u00a7 15A-1242 was made by one judge at pretrial hearing, a de novo inquiry was not required by second judge who presided at actual trial"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "323 N.C. 368",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        2562377,
        2566140,
        2560912,
        2565048,
        2562684
      ],
      "year": 1988,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "parenthetical": "where an inquiry under N.C.G.S. \u00a7 15A-1242 was made by one judge at pretrial hearing, a de novo inquiry was not required by second judge who presided at actual trial"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/323/0368-01",
        "/nc/323/0368-05",
        "/nc/323/0368-04",
        "/nc/323/0368-03",
        "/nc/323/0368-02"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "363 S.E.2d 657",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1988,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "parenthetical": "where an inquiry under N.C.G.S. \u00a7 15A-1242 was made by one judge at pretrial hearing, a de novo inquiry was not required by second judge who presided at actual trial"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "88 N.C. App. 428",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8358383
      ],
      "year": 1988,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "parenthetical": "where an inquiry under N.C.G.S. \u00a7 15A-1242 was made by one judge at pretrial hearing, a de novo inquiry was not required by second judge who presided at actual trial"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/88/0428-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "343 S.E.2d 793",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1986,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "parenthetical": "where judge conducted inquiry at preliminary hearing on motion to withdraw, statutory requirements of N.C.G.S. \u00a7 15A-1242 were satisfied even though different judge presided at trial"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "316 N.C. 387",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        4703691
      ],
      "year": 1986,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "parenthetical": "where judge conducted inquiry at preliminary hearing on motion to withdraw, statutory requirements of N.C.G.S. \u00a7 15A-1242 were satisfied even though different judge presided at trial"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/316/0387-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "369 S.E.2d 590",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1988,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "592"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "322 N.C. 600",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        2513603
      ],
      "year": 1988,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "603"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/322/0600-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "353 S.E.2d 409",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1987,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "319 N.C. 225",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        4740803,
        4742845,
        4745256,
        4740949,
        4748221
      ],
      "year": 1987,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/319/0225-01",
        "/nc/319/0225-04",
        "/nc/319/0225-02",
        "/nc/319/0225-03",
        "/nc/319/0225-05"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "350 S.E.2d 128",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1986,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "129"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "83 N.C. App. 323",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8358510
      ],
      "year": 1986,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "324"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/83/0323-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "284 S.E.2d 312",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1981,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "316"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "304 N.C. 511",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8569335
      ],
      "year": 1981,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "516"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/304/0511-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "139 S.E.2d 667",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1965,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "263 N.C. 260",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8569683
      ],
      "year": 1965,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/263/0260-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "271 S.E.2d 252",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1980,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "256"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "301 N.C. 348",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8566259
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1980,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "354"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/301/0348-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "422 U.S. 806",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "U.S.",
      "case_ids": [
        9431
      ],
      "year": 1975,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/us/422/0806-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "372 U.S. 335",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "U.S.",
      "case_ids": [
        1765333
      ],
      "year": 1963,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/us/372/0335-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 409,
    "char_count": 7633,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.776,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 7.464964551031462e-08,
      "percentile": 0.44502015368463566
    },
    "sha256": "0687b7693eb46fa993d8db216fde0058ddf2c95b9b6ec4d900aed0e7bb6820a0",
    "simhash": "1:2b6c599f347ba87a",
    "word_count": 1250
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:27:13.805826+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges Arnold and Parker concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. WALTER CLARK LAMB"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "GREENE, Judge.\nDefendant was convicted in district court of carrying a concealed weapon in violation of N.C.G.S. \u00a7 14-269 (1986). He appealed to superior court where a jury found him guilty of carrying a concealed weapon. He received a suspended six-month term of imprisonment. Defendant appeals.\nOn 12 September 1990, a pretrial hearing was held in superior court before Judge Russell G. Walker, Jr. Judge Walker asked defendant if he understood that he had a right to counsel and defendant stated that he did. Judge Walker then informed defendant that if he could not hire his own attorney, one would be appointed to represent him. Judge Walker also told defendant that he had been charged with carrying a concealed weapon, that this offense was punishable by a maximum sentence of six months, and that defendant could receive active prison time as a result of this offense. Defendant indicated that he understood and stated that he was going to represent himself. Defendant also stated that he was ready to try the case immediately. Judge Walker asked defendant to sign a waiver of his right to assigned counsel, which defendant did, and Judge Walker then certified this written waiver. Defendant was arraigned, pled not guilty, and his case was scheduled for trial.\nDefendant\u2019s case came on for jury trial in superior court on 4 October 1990 before Judge W. Steven Allen. After defendant\u2019s case was called for trial, Judge Allen asked defendant if he was representing himself and defendant replied that he was. Judge Allen made no further inquiry at that time. Defendant represented himself at trial and was found guilty by the jury.\nThe only issue is whether an inquiry made by a judge at a pretrial stage of a proceeding satisfies the mandates of N.C.G.S. \u00a7 15A-1242 when that judge does not preside at the subsequent trial.\nA criminal defendant has a constitutional right to the assistance of competent counsel in his defense. Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 (1963). Implicit in defendant\u2019s constitutional right to counsel is the right to refuse the assistance of counsel and conduct his own defense. Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (1975). In its decisions both prior to and after Faretta, this court has held that counsel may not be forced on an unwilling defendant. State v. Thacker, 301 N.C. 348, 271 S.E.2d 252 (1980); State v. McNeil, 263 N.C. 260, 139 S.E.2d 667 (1965).\nState v. Gerald, 304 N.C. 511, 516, 284 S.E.2d 312, 316 (1981). Beyond the constitutional protections of the right to counsel afforded individuals, our legislature has regulated the process by which a defendant may elect to represent himself at trial.\nA 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:\n(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;\n(2) Understands and appreciates the consequences of this decision; and\n(3) Comprehends the nature of the charges and proceedings and the range of permissible punishments.\nN.C.G.S. \u00a7 15A-1242 (1988).\nWaiver of counsel, like the waiver of all constitutional rights, must be knowing and voluntary. State v. Thacker, 301 N.C. 348, 354, 271 S.E.2d 252, 256 (1980). The record must affirmatively show that the inquiry mandated by N.C.G.S. \u00a7 15A-1242 was made and that the defendant, by his answers, was literate, competent, understood the consequences of his waiver, and voluntarily exercised his own free will. State v. Callahan, 83 N.C. App. 323, 324, 350 S.E.2d 128, 129 (1986), disc. rev. denied, 319 N.C. 225, 353 S.E.2d 409 (1987). The inquiry is mandatory and failure to conduct it constitutes prejudicial error. State v. Pruitt, 322 N.C. 600, 603, 369 S.E.2d 590, 592 (1988).\nOn 12 September 1990, at the pretrial hearing, Judge Walker advised defendant of his right to counsel and of his right to have a court-appointed attorney. Judge Walker also informed defendant of the charge and range of permissible punishments. Defendant indicated that he understood. After the inquiry, defendant signed a written waiver of his right to assigned counsel. This inquiry demonstrates that defendant had been advised of his right to counsel, and comprehended the nature of the charges against him as well as the permissible punishment. Furthermore, defendant\u2019s desire to immediately try the case as well as his dialogue with Judge Walker demonstrated that he understood the consequences of the decision to represent himself. This exchange adequately examined the three areas of inquiry required under the statute.\nDefendant argues, however, that Judge Walker\u2019s inquiry did not satisfy N.C.G.S. \u00a7 15A-1242 because this statute required Judge Allen, as the judge presiding at defendant\u2019s trial, to make the inquiry. Although N.C.G.S. \u00a7 15A-1242 states that the \u201ctrial judge\u201d must make the inquiry into defendant\u2019s choice to represent himself, we do not read the statute as mandating that the inquiry be made by the judge actually presiding at the defendant\u2019s trial. A thorough inquiry into the three substantive elements of the statute, conducted at a preliminary stage of a proceeding, meets the requirements of N.C.G.S. \u00a7 15A-1242 even if it is conducted by a judge other than the judge who presides at the subsequent trial. See State v. Kuplen, 316 N.C. 387, 343 S.E.2d 793 (1986) (where judge conducted inquiry at preliminary hearing on motion to withdraw, statutory requirements of N.C.G.S. \u00a7 15A-1242 were satisfied even though different judge presided at trial); State v. Messick, 88 N.C. App. 428, 363 S.E.2d 657, cert. denied, 323 N.C. 368, 373 S.E.2d 553 (1988) (where an inquiry under N.C.G.S. \u00a7 15A-1242 was made by one judge at pretrial hearing, a de novo inquiry was not required by second judge who presided at actual trial). In this case, Judge Walker conducted an inquiry at the pretrial proceeding, which covered the three substantive elements in N.C.G.S. \u00a7 15A-1242. The fact that Judge Walker did not later preside over defendant\u2019s actual trial does not invalidate compliance with the statute. The statute was fully complied with, and it was therefore unnecessary for Judge Allen to repeat the statutory inquiry.\nNo error.\nJudges Arnold and Parker concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "GREENE, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney General Lacy H. Thornburg, by Assistant Attorney General Barbara A. Shaw, for the State.",
      "Assistant Public Defender Linda M. Mitchell for defendant-appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. WALTER CLARK LAMB\nNo. 9118SC127\n(Filed 6 August 1991)\nConstitutional Law \u00a7 280 |NCI4th) \u2014 appearance pro se \u2014 waiver of right to counsel \u2014 inquiry at pretrial hearing \u2014 no inquiry by trial judge\nThere was no error in a prosecution for carrying a concealed weapon where an inquiry was made at a pretrial hearing as to defendant\u2019s waiver of counsel and the inquiry was not repeated when defendant was tried before a different judge. Although N.C.G.S. \u00a7 15A-1242 states that the trial judge must conduct the inquiry into defendant\u2019s choice to represent himself, the statute does not mandate that the inquiry be made by the judge actually presiding at the defendant\u2019s trial. A thorough inquiry into the three substantive elements of the statute at a preliminary stage of a proceeding meets the statutory requirements even if it is by a judge other than the judge who presides at trial.\nAm Jur 2d, Criminal Law \u00a7\u00a7 988-990, 992..\nAPPEAL by defendant from judgment entered 4 October 1990 by Judge W. Steven Allen in GUILFORD County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 6 June 1991.\nAttorney General Lacy H. Thornburg, by Assistant Attorney General Barbara A. Shaw, for the State.\nAssistant Public Defender Linda M. Mitchell for defendant-appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0646-01",
  "first_page_order": 676,
  "last_page_order": 679
}