{ "id": 11095019, "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. MICHAEL GERMAINE STANBACK", "name_abbreviation": "State v. Stanback", "decision_date": "2000-04-18", "docket_number": "No. COA99-1176", "first_page": "583", "last_page": "586", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "137 N.C. App. 583" } ], "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": "513 S.E.2d 90", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1999, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "95" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "132 N.C. App. 697", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 11239923 ], "year": 1999, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "704" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/132/0697-01" ] }, { "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": "348 S.E.2d 801", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 3, "year": 1986, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "804", "parenthetical": "citation omitted" }, { "page": "804" }, { "page": "805" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "318 N.C. 384", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 4733184 ], "weight": 3, "year": 1986, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "388", "parenthetical": "citation omitted" }, { "page": "389" }, { "page": "389" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/318/0384-01" ] }, { "cite": "74 L. Ed. 2d 513", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "L. Ed. 2d", "year": 1982, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "459 U.S. 1018", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 6468801, 6468547, 6469476, 6468711, 6469608, 6469353, 6468967, 6468624, 6468240, 6468465, 6469044, 6468343, 6469144, 6469246 ], "year": 1982, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/459/1018-07", "/us/459/1018-04", "/us/459/1018-13", "/us/459/1018-06", "/us/459/1018-14", "/us/459/1018-12", "/us/459/1018-08", "/us/459/1018-05", "/us/459/1018-01", "/us/459/1018-03", "/us/459/1018-09", "/us/459/1018-02", "/us/459/1018-10", "/us/459/1018-11" ] }, { "cite": "676 F.2d 995", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "F.2d", "case_ids": [ 562145 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "1002" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/f2d/676/0995-01" ] }, { "cite": "300 S.E.2d 375", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1983, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "378", "parenthetical": "quoting United States v. McCaskill, 676 F.2d 995, 1002 (4th Cir.) (footnote omitted), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1018, 74 L. Ed. 2d 513 (1982)" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "307 N.C. 655", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8565416 ], "year": 1983, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "660", "parenthetical": "quoting United States v. McCaskill, 676 F.2d 995, 1002 (4th Cir.) (footnote omitted), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1018, 74 L. Ed. 2d 513 (1982)" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/307/0655-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 386, "char_count": 6313, "ocr_confidence": 0.763, "pagerank": { "raw": 1.6362009566301904e-07, "percentile": 0.6903323321166601 }, "sha256": "4c071b63d6e16ad48746e32ae566f5353aae957f5f4ad9ec0711aec733f05092", "simhash": "1:4bebd06956568bde", "word_count": 1009 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:42:18.277293+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Judges EDMUNDS and SMITH concur." ], "parties": [ "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. MICHAEL GERMAINE STANBACK" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "GREENE, Judge.\nMichael Germaine Stanback (Defendant) failed to perfect his appeal from three judgments reflecting jury verdicts finding him guilty of two counts of second-degree kidnaping and robbery with a dangerous weapon. On 22 December 1997, this Court allowed Defendant\u2019s petition for writ of certiorari to review these judgments.\nThe record shows that on 16 September 1996, Defendant was charged with two counts of first-degree kidnaping and robbery with a dangerous weapon. Because of Defendant\u2019s indigency, the trial court appointed an attorney to represent him. On 21 October 1996, Defendant filed a letter with the trial court requesting his court appointed counsel \u201cbe taken off [his] case\u201d because his family wanted to retain an attorney for him.\nDefendant\u2019s case was called for trial on 14 January 1997. At that time, Defendant told the trial court, \u201cI\u2019d like to represent myself and go ahead with the trial.\u201d After the trial court cautioned Defendant about the hazards of representing himself, the trial court took a recess to allow Defendant to consult with his appointed counsel. After the recess, Defendant\u2019s counsel informed the trial court Defendant was adamant about wanting to represent himself. When the trial court asked Defendant if he wanted to represent himself, Defendant responded, \u201cYes, I do.\u201d The trial court then appointed Defendant\u2019s appointed counsel as Defendant\u2019s standby counsel, and, without further inquiry, brought Defendant\u2019s case to trial.\nThe State\u2019s evidence shows that on 12 August 1996, Defendant and two other men entered a business named Carl Scrap Metal, they taped the hands and mouths of two workers, and they demanded money. One of the three men who entered the business exhibited a handgun. After Defendant and the two other men had taken money from a billfold, from a cash box, and from a cash register, they left the scene.\nDefendant testified on his own behalf, and denied having any involvement in the robbery.\nThe jury found Defendant guilty of armed robbery and two counts of second-degree kidnaping.\nThe dispositive issue is whether the trial court committed plain error by allowing Defendant to proceed pro se without first inquiring as to whether Defendant \u201c[c]omprehend[ed] the nature of the charges and proceedings and the range of permissible punishments,\u201d pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 15A-1242(3).\nDefendant contends, and the State agrees, the trial court committed plain error by not complying with the statutory mandate of N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 15A-1242 before allowing Defendant to proceed pro se.\nPlain error arises when the error is \u201c \u2018so basic, so prejudicial, so lacking in its elements that justice cannot have been done[.]\u2019 \u201d State v. Odom, 307 N.C. 655, 660, 300 S.E.2d 375, 378 (1983) (quoting United States v. McCaskill, 676 F.2d 995, 1002 (4th Cir.) (footnote omitted), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1018, 74 L. Ed. 2d 513 (1982)).\nSection 15-1242 provides:\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 (1999). Compliance with section 15A-1242 serves to insure the defendant \u201cvoluntarily made a knowing and intelligent waiver of his constitutional right to counsel in order to exercise his constitutional right to represent himself.\u201d State v. Dunlap, 318 N.C. 384, 388, 348 S.E.2d 801, 804 (1986) (citation omitted). The record must reflect that the trial court is satisfied regarding each of the three inquiries listed in the statute. State v. Callahan, 83 N.C. App. 323, 324, 350 S.E.2d 128, 129 (1986), disc. review denied, 319 N.C. 225, 353 S.E.2d 409 (1987).\nIn this case, the record indicates the trial court discussed with Defendant the consequences of his decision to represent himself. Additionally, Defendant had been advised of his right to assigned counsel since \u201che had exercised the right and counsel had been appointed to represent him.\u201d Dunlap, 318 N.C. at 389, 348 S.E.2d at 804. The record, however, does not indicate the trial court made any inquiry to satisfy itself Defendant comprehended \u201cthe nature of the charges and proceedings and the range of permissible punishments.\u201d N.C.G.S. \u00a7 15A-1242. Furthermore, \u201cneither the statutory responsibilities of standby counsel . . . nor the actual participation of standby counsel... is a satisfactory substitute for the right to counsel in the absence of a knowing and voluntary waiver.\u201d Dunlop, 318 N.C. at 389, 348 S.E.2d at 805. Accordingly, the trial court\u2019s failure to comply with section 15A-1242 is plain error. Furthermore, because it is prejudicial error to allow a criminal defendant to proceed pro se without making the inquiry required by section 15A-1242, Defendant must be granted a new trial. State v. Hyatt, 132 N.C. App. 697, 704, 513 S.E.2d 90, 95 (1999).\nNew trial.\nJudges EDMUNDS and SMITH concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "GREENE, Judge." } ], "attorneys": [ "Attorney General Michael F. Easley, by Assistant Attorney General Marc D. Bernstein, for the State.", "North Carolina Prisoner Legal Services, by J. Phillip Griffin, for defendant-appellant." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. MICHAEL GERMAINE STANBACK\nNo. COA99-1176\n(Filed 18 April 2000)\nConstitutional Law\u2014 right to counsel \u2014 pro se representation \u2014 inadequate inquiry\nThe trial court committed plain error by allowing defendant to proceed pro se in an armed robbery and kidnapping case because: (1) the trial court did not inquire as to whether defendant comprehended the nature of the charges and proceedings and the range of permissible punishments as required by N.C.G.S. \u00a7 15A-1242(3); and (2) neither the statutory responsibilities of standby counsel nor the actual participation of standby counsel is a satisfactory substitute for the right to counsel in the absence of a knowing and voluntary waiver.\nOn writ of certiorari to review judgments dated 16 January 1997 by Judge William Z. Wood, Jr. in Stanly County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 4 April 2000.\nAttorney General Michael F. Easley, by Assistant Attorney General Marc D. Bernstein, for the State.\nNorth Carolina Prisoner Legal Services, by J. Phillip Griffin, for defendant-appellant." }, "file_name": "0583-01", "first_page_order": 615, "last_page_order": 618 }