{
  "id": 6768620,
  "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. KENNETH CARROLL MEE",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Mee",
  "decision_date": "2014-04-15",
  "docket_number": "No. COA13-1035",
  "first_page": "542",
  "last_page": "563",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "233 N.C. App. 542"
    }
  ],
  "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": "634 S.E.2d 915",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "case_ids": [
        12636715
      ],
      "year": 2006,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "917",
          "parenthetical": "citing Montgomery at 524, 530 S.E.2d at 69"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/se2d/634/0915-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "691 S.E.2d 414",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 2010,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "682 S.E.2d 463",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 2009,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "467",
          "parenthetical": "citing Montgomery"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "200 N.C. App. 97",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        4171858
      ],
      "year": 2009,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "102",
          "parenthetical": "citing Montgomery"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/200/0097-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "717 S.E.2d 566",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 2011,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "365 N.C. 338",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "year": 2011,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "710 S.E.2d 282",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "weight": 4,
      "year": 2011,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "287"
        },
        {
          "page": "288-89"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "211 N.C. App. 511",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        3806321
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 2011,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "517"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/211/0511-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "179 N.C. App. 647",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8238896
      ],
      "year": 2006,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "649-50",
          "parenthetical": "citing Montgomery at 524, 530 S.E.2d at 69"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/179/0647-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "67 F.3d 1092",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "F.3d",
      "case_ids": [
        7416096
      ],
      "year": 1995,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "1100"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/f3d/67/1092-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "694 S.E.2d 766",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 2010,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "363 N.C. 857",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "year": 2010,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "683 S.E.2d 437",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 2009,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "444",
          "parenthetical": "citation omitted"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "200 N.C. App. 204",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        4171907
      ],
      "year": 2009,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "214",
          "parenthetical": "citation omitted"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/200/0204-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "234 S.E.2d 742",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1977,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "747"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "292 N.C. 609",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8571595
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1977,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "616"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/292/0609-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "530 S.E.2d 66",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "weight": 6,
      "year": 2000,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "68",
          "parenthetical": "citing State v. McFadden, 292 N.C. 609, 234 S.E.2d 742 (1977)"
        },
        {
          "page": "69"
        },
        {
          "page": "69"
        },
        {
          "page": "69",
          "parenthetical": "citation omitted"
        },
        {
          "page": "69"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "138 N.C. App. 521",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        11080635
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 2000,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "524",
          "parenthetical": "citing State v. McFadden, 292 N.C. 609, 234 S.E.2d 742 (1977)"
        },
        {
          "page": "524"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/138/0521-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 1132,
    "char_count": 41211,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.73,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 7.094076931987677e-08,
      "percentile": 0.4266138682216608
    },
    "sha256": "63888fb9aca558590d31007b3e2d3581a2c7510ccd3b1540fc0e6d475383f838",
    "simhash": "1:ebb6cd8a47f68037",
    "word_count": 6965
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:57:00.832613+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges McGEE and ERVIN concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. KENNETH CARROLL MEE"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "STEELMAN, Judge.\nWhere defendant waived the right to appointed counsel, retained and then fired counsel twice, was briefly represented by an assistant public defender, and refused to state his wishes with respect to representation, instead arguing that he was not subject to the court\u2019s jurisdiction and would not participate in the trial, and ultimately chose to absent himself from the courtroom during the trial, defendant forfeited his right to the assistance of counsel.\nI. Factual and Procedural Background\nOn 5 January 2012 defendant was arrested for trafficking in cocaine by possession of more than 28 but less than 200 grams of cocaine, possession of 573 grams of marijuana, and maintaining a dwelling for keeping and selling controlled substances. He was indicted for these offenses on 9 July 2012. Defendant appeared before at least four superior court judges for pretrial proceedings and made inconsistent statements regarding his representation by counsel, including waiver of appointed counsel, hiring and then discharging counsel on two occasions, representation by an assistant public defender, and asserting an unsupported legal theory that he was not subject to the court\u2019s jurisdiction.\nOn 25 March 2013, defendant was before the trial court for trial. He refused to state a clear position regarding counsel and told the trial court that he did not want his retained counsel to represent him at trial, did not want to represent himself at trial, did not want standby counsel to take any role in the trial, and would not remain in the courtroom or otherwise \u201cparticipate\u201d in his trial. Defendant refused to remain in the courtroom and was confuted to a holding cell near the courtroom during trial.\nThe State\u2019s evidence generally showed that law enforcement officers arrested defendant at his home on 5 January 2012 for possession of cocaine, marijuana, drug paraphernalia, and firearms. Defendant waived his Miranda rights, and gave a statement confessing to the charged offenses. Defendant did not question the State\u2019s witnesses or offer any evidence. On 26 March 2013 the jury returned verdicts finding him guilty of trafficking in cocaine by possession of more than 28 but less, than 200 grams of cocaine, possession of 573 grams of marijuana, and maintaining a dwelling for keeping and selling controlled substances.\nThe trial court sentenced defendant to a term of 35 to 51 months imprisonment for trafficking in cocaine, to begin at the expiration of three consecutive sentences of thirty days for contempt of court. The trial court imposed concurrent sentences of 6 to 17 months for the remaining offenses, and suspended each sentence, with concurrent terms of 30 months\u2019 probation to begin when defendant was released from prison. On 30 April 2013 the trial court corrected defendant\u2019s sentence for trafficking in cocaine to a term of 35 to 42 months in prison.\nDefendant appeals.\nII. Standard of Review\nDefendant argues on appeal that his constitutional right to the assistance of counsel was violated. \u201cThe right to counsel is guaranteed by the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution and Article I of the North Carolina Constitution.\u201d State v. Montgomery, 138 N.C. App. 521, 524, 530 S.E.2d 66, 68 (2000) (citing State v. McFadden, 292 N.C. 609, 234 S.E.2d 742 (1977)). The \u201cstandard of review for alleged violations of constitutional rights is de novo.\u201d State v. Graham, 200 N.C. App. 204, 214, 683 S.E.2d 437, 444 (2009) (citation omitted), disc. review denied, 363 N.C. 857, 694 S.E.2d 766 (2010).\nIII. Forfeiture of the Right to Counsel\nA. Standard of Review\n\u201c \u2018[A]n accused may lose his constitutional right to be represented by counsel of his choice when he perverts that right to a weapon for the purpose of obstructing and delaying his trial.\u2019 \u201d Montgomery, 138 N.C. App. at 524, 530 S.E.2d at 69 (quoting McFadden 292 N.C. at 616, 234 S.E.2d at 747).\nAlthough the loss of counsel due to defendant\u2019s own actions is often referred to as a waiver of the right to counsel, a better term to describe this situation is forfeiture. \u201cUnlike waiver, which requires a knowing and intentional relinquishment of a known right, forfeiture results in the loss of a right regardless of the defendant\u2019s knowledge thereof and irrespective of whether the defendant intended to relinquish the right.\u201d\nMontgomery at 524-25, 530 S.E.2d at 69 (quoting United States v. Goldberg, 67 F.3d 1092, 1100 (3d. Cir. 1995)). In Montgomery, this Court held that the defendant\u2019s \u201cpurposeful conduct and tactics to delay and frustrate the orderly processes of our trial courts simply cannot be condoned. Defendant, by his own conduct, forfeited his right to counsel!)]\u201d Id. at 525, 530 S.E.2d at 69 (citation omitted).\nB. Analysis\nReview of the defendant\u2019s actions during the fourteen months between his arrest and trial reveals that he engaged in behavior which resulted in the forfeiture of the right to counsel. At his first appearance in district court on 6 January 2012, defendant signed a waiver of appointed counsel. On 6 June 2012 defendant was again in district court, where he refused to check any of the options on a waiver of counsel form and signed the form \u201cAll rights reserved UCC-1-300 Kenneth Mee Bey.\u201d Handwritten notes on the waiver form indicate that defendant \u201crefused to address [the] court about counsel,\u201d and stated that \u201che did not recognize the Court.\u201d The notes also indicate that defendant previously had retained attorney Alton Williams to represent him, but that Mr. Williams was allowed to withdraw because he \u201ccould not ethically proceed\u201d to pursue motions that defendant had filed.\nOn 30 July 2012 defendant appeared in superior court for arraignment before Judge Donald W. Stephens. Initially, he denied being Kenneth Mee, and stated that he was \u201cKenneth Mee Bey, a prior person\u201d who was a \u201csovereign from [Moorish] descent\u201d and was \u201cnot a Fourteenth Amendment citizen.\u201d However, Judge Stephens ruled that if defendant would not acknowledge his identity his bond would be revoked. Defendant then verified for the court that he was Kenneth Mee. Defendant told the court that he did not have an attorney, did not intend to hire one, and did not want the court to appoint a lawyer, but that he did not intend to proceed pro se because he was \u201cimproper personnel.\u201d Defendant refused to enter a plea and Judge Stephens entered a plea of not guilty on his behalf, prompting defendant to ask for the judge\u2019s \u201coath of office\u201d and \u201cbonding number\u201d so that he could file \u201ca counterclaim in Federal Court.\u201d When defendant continued to argue with Judge Stephens, the judge revoked his bond and ruled that, because defendant would not sign a waiver of the right to counsel, he was appointing the public defender\u2019s office to represent him.\nOn 22 August 2012, defendant was again before Judge Donald Stephens. At this hearing he was represented by Stephanie Davis, an assistant public defender, who asked Judge Stephens to reconsider defendant\u2019s bond. However, the court ruled that, after reading defendant\u2019s pro se filings, he was concerned that, given defendant\u2019s contention that the laws of North Carolina and of the United States did not apply to him, defendant would not appear for trial. Defendant would not allow his attorney to enter a plea on his behalf and informed the. court that he objected to the court\u2019s jurisdiction. When defendant refused to enter a plea, Judge Stephens entered a plea of not guilty on his behalf, and denied defendant\u2019s request to modify the conditions of release.\nOn 25 October 2012, Mr. Williams filed a notice of representation indicating that defendant had again retained him as counsel, and Ms. Davis was permitted to withdraw. On 29 October 2012 defendant was in court before Judge Paul Gessner, at which time Mr. Williams entered \u201ca general appearance on [defendant\u2019s] behalf [.]\u201d The prosecutor informed Judge Gessner that defendant had previously submitted \u201cfilings where the defendant was invoking the UCC and claiming he was not a citizen of the State of North Carolina and not subject to the laws of this state and the jurisdiction of the court.\u201d Mr. Williams responded that defendant was \u201csubmitting himself to the jurisdiction of the court\u201d and would withdraw his motions challenging the court\u2019s jurisdiction. Judge Gessner declined to modify the conditions of defendant\u2019s bond.\nMr. Williams filed a motion for continuance on 30 November 2012, which was granted by Judge Howard E. Manning, Jr., on 12 December 2012. However, when defendant was next in court on 4 February 2013, before Judge G. Wayne Abernathy, the prosecutor informed the court that defendant had revived his challenge to the court\u2019s jurisdiction. When Mr. Williams stated that he was \u201cready to proceed\u201d and \u201cprepared to represent\u201d defendant at trial, defendant objected:\nTHE COURT: What\u2019s the objection?\nDEFENDANT: I\u2019m the proper person. I\u2019m defending myself. He is not my attorney. I\u2019m a sovereign nation. He is not my attorney.\nTHE COURT: So you\u2019re telling me that you do not want Mr. Williams to represent you in this matter?\nDEFENDANT: I\u2019m telling you the only issue for me today is my personal jurisdiction. I\u2019m making a special appearance. I\u2019m showing the Court the sole reason for my appearance is to establish personal jurisdiction....\nTHE COURT: ... The first question is are you representing to me that Mr. Williams is not your lawyer?\nDEFENDANT: Yes, sir.\nTHE COURT: So that means that you are discharging Mr. Williams?\nDEFENDANT: I am not contracting with the State of North Carolina. He\u2019s an agent of the State so he\u2019s not -\nTHE COURT: He\u2019s your attorney right now.\nDEFENDANT: No, sir, he\u2019s not.\nTHE COURT: ... Anyway, you understand you\u2019re charged with trafficking in cocaine by possession?\nDEFENDANT: No, sir, I do not understand that charge. No, sir, I do not.\nTHE COURT: What is it you do not understand?\nDEFENDANT: I do not understand what you\u2019re trying to charge me with. The only reason I\u2019m here for is the jurisdiction.\nTHE COURT I\u2019m going to get to the jurisdiction.\nDEFENDANT: I don\u2019t understand none of the charges . .. Nothing you\u2019re saying to me that pertains to whatever you\u2019re trying to pertain to, I\u2019m not in that jurisdiction so, no, sir, I don\u2019t understand none of that.\nTHE COURT: Well, sir, the charge is of trafficking cocaine by possession -\nDEFENDANT: I don\u2019t know what you\u2019re talking about.\nTHE COURT: You\u2019re charged with possession and intent to sell and deliver marijuana.\nDEFENDANT: The only thing I\u2019m here for is the jurisdiction.\nTHE COURT: You\u2019re also charged with maintaining a dwelling place for keeping and selling of a controlled substance. And, apparently, you have confessed to those crimes or there\u2019s certainly evidence that you have-\nDEFENDANT: No, sir. It wasn\u2019t me.\nTHE COURT: So you\u2019re charged with three felonies. And one of them is extraordinarily serious because there\u2019s a minimum sentence that I cannot go below. And I will tell you that most people who choose to represent themselves make a serious mistake. Very rarely are they found not guilty. I just want you to be aware of that. You don\u2019t have to agree with that. I just want you to be aware of that. So it\u2019s your position you want to represent yourself, and I will allow you to do that. Are you willing to sign a waiver of counsel?\nDEFENDANT: No, sir. I will not sign any contracts. I will not take any oaths.\nTHE COURT: All right. I\u2019m going to appoint Mr. Williams as standby counsel just in case you have any questions, but you\u2019re responsible for your own case....\nDEFENDANT: I\u2019m only here for jurisdiction. I don\u2019t know what you\u2019re talking about when you say trial. \u2022\nTHE COURT: Your trial.\nDEFENDANT: No, sir.\nTHE COURT: But I will entertain your motion ... to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.\nDEFENDANT: ... I filed three motions that were never answered. Ace you answering here in the courtroom? They have to be answered in writing. ... I object to this whole proceeding, sir. . . . [T]he only reason I\u2019m here is, like I said, the jurisdiction.... Anything else you say, I object.\nTHE COURT: Well, you can object. I note your objection. I want you to understand that if you\u2019re not ready to participate we can send you back to jail and sit there until you\u2019re ready.\nDEFENDANT: Well, send me back to jail because I\u2019m not -1 will never participate in this - what is your status? Who are you? What is your nationality?\nTHE COURT: Do you want to argue a motion on lack of jurisdiction?\nDEFENDANT: No_I would like to get that information.\nTHE COURT: I\u2019ve asked you -\nDEFENDANT: No, sir, . . . [0]n the record and for the record I have asked for the judge - What\u2019d say your name was?\nTHE COURT: Abernathy.\nDEFENDANT: - for his oath of office, his-bonding license, and what nationality he is. And you\u2019re saying now you\u2019re not going to tell me?\nTHE COURT: I\u2019m saying that you don\u2019t get to ask me questions.\nDEFENDANT: ... [A]s far as your proceedings go, you\u2019re talking about sending me back to jail. That\u2019s what you will have to do because I will object, and I will not contract under UCC 1-308-1.1 will not contract. And all law is contract. ... I object on the grounds I am Alique Mee Bey, executive beneficiary on behalf of Kenneth Mee. I am a free indigenous man in full life and peacefully inhabited which duly arise under the United Nations Declaration of Rights of Indigenous People ... Once jurisdiction is challenged, the Court cannot proceed when it clearly appears that the court lacks jurisdiction^]...\nTHE COURT: All right. You have argued I do not have jurisdiction over you[.] . . . U.C.C. law is a civil contract issue. It does not apply in criminal court. I have read all of your motions, and, sir, each and every one of them is denied.... Are you prepared to go forward with your trial?\nTHE DEFENDANT: No, sir. We will not go forward. I told you I understand no trial. I\u2019m only here for jurisdiction. That\u2019s the only reason I\u2019m here. I\u2019m not here to try no case. I\u2019m not here for no understanding, no charges. I don\u2019t even know what you\u2019re talking about. I\u2019m here for one reason.\nTHE COURT: Mr. Williams, have you presented copies of his indictments to him?\nMR. WILLIAMS: He\u2019s seen everything.\nTHE COURT: He\u2019s informed of the charges?\nDEFENDANT: No, sir. I object.\nTHE COURT: ... [Y]our objection is noted.\nDEFENDANT: I will keep objecting. Sir, I\u2019m only here for jurisdiction. That\u2019s it.\nTHE COURT: And your motion to deny jurisdiction is denied.\nDEFENDANT: Like I said, I object to anything you say about a charge. I don\u2019t know what you\u2019re talking about.\nTHE COURT: That\u2019s fine. Your objection\u2019s in the record. Now we\u2019re going to move on.\nDEFENDANT: We ain\u2019t going to move on. I\u2019m not going to proceed.\nTHE COURT: You understand you\u2019ll sit in jail until you\u2019re ready to proceed?\nDEFENDANT: You do what you have to.\nPROSECUTOR: Just so we\u2019re clear, Judge, the case is continued off this calendar. Mr. Mee has fired his attorney, Mr. Williams, and is proceeding pro se.\nTHE COURT: He\u2019s proceeding pro se. The Court makes a finding of fact that the Court tried to get Mr. Mee to sign a waiver of counsel. He refused to do so, and he is now proceeding pro se. The Court appointed Mr. Williams as standby counsel. The Court explained to him that Mr. Williams does not conduct the trial but would be available for questions or advice from him. And the Court therefore orders that Mr. Williams is relieved as counsel of record, but he is reserved as standby counsel and that the - the Court finds that the defendant has knowingly and intelligently waived his right to counsel, chooses not to use counsel, and has stated a number of times that he represents himself and he contests the jurisdiction of the Court. The Court also notes that the defendant\u2019s conduct is somewhat contemptuous, but the Court took no action on that at this time.\nTHE COURT: We\u2019re back on the record in the matter of the State versus Kenneth Carroll Mee[.] . . . [A]ny time from today until the defendant is ready to be tried is to be excluded ... in calculating any times for a speedy trial motion because the State was ready to proceed, his lawyer was ready to proceed, and the defendant prohibited the trial of this case by refusing to accede to the jurisdiction of the Court and stated unequivocally that he was going to keep objecting and made it impossible for the Court to try the case.\nDefendant appeared for trial on 25 March 2013, before Judge Michael J. O\u2019Foghludha. The prosecutor summarized the procedural his-toiy of the case and informed the trial court that the State was prepared to proceed. The trial court tried unsuccessfully to determine whether defendant wished to appear pro se or with the assistance of counsel:\nTHE COURT: ... Mr. Mee, what\u2019s the status of your attorney situation right now, sir, are you representing yourself?\nDEFENDANT: I am myself. I\u2019m an improper person, sir, so I have no attorney. I\u2019m talking for myself.\nTHE COURT: Thank you. So you\u2019re representing yourself as far as this proceeding.\nDEFENDANT: I\u2019m an improper person. I am myself. I don\u2019t have to represent myself. I\u2019m talking for myself.\nTHE COURT: . . . Mr. Williams, let me ask you, sir. I just noted in the file that you have a general appearance back in October 15th of 2012.\nMR. WILLIAMS: That\u2019s correct.\nTHE COURT: But you are not representing Mr. Mee at the moment; is that correct?\nMR. WILLIAMS: No, Judge. I was appointed standby counsel by Judge Abernathy.\nDEFENDANT: I want to object to the charges that Mr. Wilson has brung against me. The only reason I\u2019m here, sir, is for a special appearance for jurisdiction, showing up for this Court for the sole purpose of contesting the Court\u2019s jurisdiction over me. My status shows evidence contrary to this Court\u2019s presumption, therefore, this Court\u2019s presumption of assertion of jurisdiction over me disappears!.] \u2022 \u2022 \u2022\nDEFENDANT: For the record and on the record, the only reason why I\u2019m here is for personal jurisdiction. . . . This Court has no jurisdiction. . . . Furthermore for the record and on the record, lam... Malik Bey, executive beneficiary on behalf of the trust of Kenneth Mee. I am an indigenous man in full light. I will not participate in any proceedings brought against me by this fictitious corporation which is the State of North Carolina.... [N]or will I stand under any fictitious contracts forced against me. I will not take any oaths, but I will affirm the truth....\nTHE COURT: Yes, sir. Mr. Wilson, I was looking at the indictment, and it appears that Mr. Mee is indicted under 90 -\nDEFENDANT: I object.\nTHE COURT: I understand, sir, overruled. ... If you wouldn\u2019t mind, just let me talk, and I\u2019ll be happy to let you talk.\nDEFENDANT: I\u2019m going to object to anything that doesn\u2019t perceive jurisdiction. So I\u2019m not going to participate in anything. ... I have a writ of habeas corpus claim on the State, and he has a copy there. . . . [Y]ou might as well send me back to jail. Because what I\u2019m going to do is just include you ... in the federal claim that I\u2019m going to file against Mr. Williams.\nTHE COURT: That\u2019s fine. Let me just stop you. Mr. Mee appears to be indicted under 90-95(h)(3) for 28 grams or more, but less than 200 grams -\nDEFENDANT: I object.\nTHE COURT: Sir, I\u2019m going to give you a little warning here. I don\u2019t mind listening to you, and I will let you talk, but please don\u2019t interrupt me, because I\u2019m trying to talk. . . . Mr. Wilson, Mr. Mee appears to be indicted under 90-95(h)(3)(a), more than 28 grams, less than 200, punished as a class G felon, sentenced to a minimum term of 35 and a maximum of 42, with a fine of $50,000 as a minimum maximum term of that statute....\nTHE COURT: ... Mr. Mee, you may object, sir, now.\nDEFENDANT: Yes, I object to what he\u2019s talking about.\nTHE COURT: All right, sir. That\u2019s overruled. Let me ask you a question, sir. ... I understand you object to the jurisdiction of the Court, but you are indicted under three separate indictments. One is trafficking and possession of less than -\nDEFENDANT: Sir ~\nTHE COURT: Let me just finish talking and then we\u2019ll - trafficking by possession of less than 28 but more than 200, which is a class G felony. Carries a minimum of 35 and a maximum of 50, and a mandatory minimum fine of $50,000. Your other two charges are possession with intent to sell and deliver marijuana greater than one and one half ounces, which is a class I felony with a maximum possible punishment of a minimum of 12 and a maximum of 24. And a third indictment of intentionally maintaining a dwelling for the keeping or selling of controlled substances, which is also a class I felony, with a minimum of 12 and a maximum of 24. And the reason I\u2019m telling you this, Mr. Mee, is that if you would like to be represented by a court-appointed counsel to represent you in this matter -\nDEFENDANT: I\u2019m not going to -\nTHE COURT: -1 will do that.\nDEFENDANT: Okay. I understand what you\u2019re saying. But I\u2019m saying I\u2019m not going to accept these proceedings. I\u2019m not going to be in this proceeding. I\u2019m not going to take count in these proceedings.\nTHE COURT: But I just want to inform you that I would appoint counsel to represent you.\nDEFENDANT: The only thing that I\u2019m here for is personal jurisdiction, and the Court doesn\u2019t have it over me. ... So as far as the charges or whatever you\u2019re talking about, I don\u2019t even know what you\u2019re talking about.\nTHE COURT: But you don\u2019t want me to give you an appointed attorney, you want to just object to the jurisdiction of the Court; is that correct?\nDEFENDANT: Jurisdiction of the Court, and . . . this fictitious corporation, which is North Carolina, bringing charges against me[.]...\nTHE COURT: What we\u2019re going to do, how we\u2019re going to proceed is that there are these charges that have been brought and we\u2019re going to -\nDEFENDANT: By who?\nTHE COURT: By the State of North Carolina. . . . And we\u2019re going to bring them to trial.\nDEFENDANT: No, I object.\nTHE COURT: I understand, and that objection is overruled. But let me tell you this. We\u2019re going to have a trial -\nDEFENDANT: No, sir.\nTHE COURT: - and we\u2019re going to bring a jury into the courtroom. And you -\nDEFENDANT: You cannot proceed -\nTHE COURT: Sir, I\u2019m talking now. So I\u2019m warning you, I don\u2019t want to be interrupted. If you\u2019ll just let me finish, and I\u2019ll let you talk too.\nDEFENDANT: Okay.\nTHE COURT: So what we\u2019re going to do is, in a bit we\u2019re going to call for people who have been called for jury service, and about 40 or 50 people are going to come into the room. Twelve of them are going to be placed randomly into the box.... And the District Attorney is going to have a chance to ask them some questions. And you\u2019re going to have a chance to ask them some questions.\nDEFENDANT: No, I\u2019m not. I\u2019m not going to - I\u2019m not going to be with these proceedings, Your Honor. If you\u2019re telling me you\u2019re going to do what you\u2019re going to do, you\u2019re going to violate my United States, United Nation rights. The best thing you can do right now is send me back to jail. All I\u2019m going to do is object to any time you ask me something.... I will not participate in this contract in any kind of way....\nTHE COURT: Mr. Mee, I want you to understand, yes, you\u2019re correct -\nDEFENDANT: I\u2019m not understanding anything you\u2019re talking about.\nTHE COURT: Sir, please don\u2019t interrupt me, one human being to another.... What we\u2019re going to do is, we\u2019re going to bring a jury in here. And you\u2019re right, we are going to proceed... whether you like it or not.\nDEFENDANT: That\u2019s fine.... I won\u2019t be a part of the proceedings, is what I\u2019m saying.\nTHE COURT: That\u2019s fine. Let me just explain to you what\u2019s going to happen, because you have a right to know it. So we\u2019re going to bring 40,50 people into this room. Twelve of them are going to be put in the box. The District Attorney is going to have a chance to ask them questions. You\u2019re going to have a chance to ask them some questions.\nDEFENDANT: No, I\u2019m not.\nTHE COURT: Then 12 people are going to be selected. DEFENDANT: No, sir.\nTHE COURT: Then after that, Mr. Wilson here as the State is going to put his evidence on. And he\u2019s going to have a chance to ask some questions, and you\u2019re going to have a chance to ask some questions.\nDEFENDANT: I will not.\nTHE COURT: That\u2019s fine. But you have a right to be here, is what I\u2019m trying to tell you.\nDEFENDANT: It\u2019s participating. I done told you I\u2019m not going to participate.\nTHE COURT: So are you telling me you want to go back -\nDEFENDANT: What I\u2019m saying, anyway, you can sit there . . . Mr. Administrator. Because since 1789, there\u2019s been no Judges. You\u2019re just an administrator of the court anyway. That\u2019s all you are, with your yellow fringe. . . . My First Amendment right has been violated. My Eighth Amendment right and Fourteenth[.]...\nTHE COURT: Sir, you have a right to participate in this trial. And if you don\u2019t want to take it, you don\u2019t have to.\nDEFENDANT: I\u2019ve already told you. I will not participate in any of the fictitious contracts that the State of North Carolina are bringing. So if you\u2019re telling me you\u2019re going to send me back and proceed, then you do so. . . . I\u2019m going to object. I\u2019m going to object to everything that happens. So if you\u2019re saying for me to stay here is participating, take me back, because I\u2019m not going to participate.\nTHE COURT: So you don\u2019t want to sit here during this trial.\nDEFENDANT: I will not participate in any trial, anything, no, sir.\nTHE COURT: You will not exercise your right to sit here and have Mr. Williams help you.\nDEFENDANT: I will not participate with anything with the fictitious State of North Carolina.... The trial is going to happen without me....\nTHE COURT: Well, you have a right to sit here and listen to the evidence against you -\nDEFENDANT: No.\nTHE COURT: - and consult with Mr. Williams. And I\u2019m also - you also have the right to take court-appointed counsel, to have an attorney represent you, to see if a jury will find you not guilty.\nDEFENDANT: I will not take a court-appointed attorney. An agent of the State. He\u2019s representing the State. He\u2019s with you, he\u2019s not with me.... I\u2019ve told you I will not participate in anything dealing with the Court trying to forcibly make me stand to trial. I\u2019m not going to participate in it_And if you\u2019re saying you\u2019re going to proceed without me, then that\u2019s what you need to do. But I won\u2019t participate in it. I won\u2019t consent to it. No, sir.\nTHE COURT: If you don\u2019t want to sit here in this trial, I\u2019m going to try to get it hooked up so that you can at least see the proceedings.\nDEFENDANT: No, no, I\u2019m not going to participate in them at all. . . . I\u2019m not going to take part in this, Your Honor. ... I will not watch a video. . . . My sole purpose here is for jurisdiction. You\u2019re saying you overruled that[.] . . . The holder in due course has to press charges. Who is the holder in due course? UCC 3-308. All law is contract. . . . Therefore, the Uniform Commercial Code applies.... I\u2019m not going to participate in this. I\u2019m protected under international law of the United States Republic Peace Treatise of 1787[.]...\nDEFENDANT: ... I put on the record where I stand with the jurisdiction, that this Court lacks jurisdiction. I put on the record that I will not participate in these proceedings.\nTHE COURT: So let me try to just give you a little information.\nDEFENDANT: Okay.\nTHE COURT: So I understand what you\u2019re saying, that you\u2019re not going to participate.... I suppose it\u2019s your right really, not to participate.... But if you continue to say you won\u2019t participate, then I am going to proceed. ... A jury is going to rule on your guilt or innocence, based on the evidence that\u2019s presented. . . . And if you\u2019re not here, and there\u2019s no defense presented and you\u2019re not participating, the chances of the jury acquitting you are ... kind of lessened. . . . And if you don\u2019t participate, one thing that Mr. Williams could do, is that Mr. Williams could ask questions on your behalf to try to -\nDEFENDANT: No, sir.\nTHE COURT: And you don\u2019t want Mr. Williams to ask questions of the witnesses on your behalf?\nDEFENDANT: There\u2019s nobody to talk to. There\u2019s nobody here. If you\u2019re going to proceed, then you do what you have to do, without my consent. You do what you have to do. But no, I don\u2019t have counsel. I don\u2019t want counsel.\nTHE COURT: And you don\u2019t want Mr. Williams to do anything on your behalf?\nDEFENDANT: Nobody do nothing on my behalf....\nThe trial court attempted unsuccessfully to obtain defendant\u2019s cooperation in remaining in the courtroom when the jury venire was brought in, to ascertain that defendant had no prior acquaintance with the any of the prospective jurors. Defendant refused to be seated or stay in the courtroom, despite being held in contempt three times. After defendant was taken to a holding cell, the trial court stated that:\nTHE COURT: The Court finds that Mr. Mee was removed from the courtroom because he was brought in for approximately an hour. The Court attempted to give him the right to proceed to trial, either pro se or with appointed counsel, or with standby counsel, and that Mr. Mee continually interrupted the Court and . . . the Prosecutor, and stated emphatically over and over . . . again that he would not participate in this trial. So the Court finds that his behavior is willfully disruptive, disrespectful of the Court, and the trial may proceed in his absence, since he has stated that he will not participate.\nTHE COURT: . . . [He] appeared to me to be competent too. And he certainly has filed a lot of paperwork in the file, which indicates that he is a very intelligent person. . . . [H]e\u2019s unequivocally stated over and over again that he won\u2019t participate and doesn\u2019t recognize the jurisdiction of the Court[.] . . . There\u2019s a number of things I\u2019d like Mr. Williams to do at every break. And one is, is to inform Mr. Mee of his right to be present.... And I would like Mr. Williams to request Mr. Mee to allow him to make objectidns, address the Court, and cross examine witnesses on his behalf....\nAt appropriate intervals during the trial, defendant\u2019s standby counsel spoke with defendant, informing him of his right to be present in court and asking if he had changed his mind about participating in the trial. Defendant consistently refused to participate, on one occasion asking standby counsel \u201cto inform the Court that he\u2019s not going to participate, that Re does not know who the State of North Carolina is, and he does not understand the proceedings.\u201d In response, the trial court stated:\nTHE COURT: ... [T]he Court finds as a fact that Mr. Mee is intentionally disrupting these proceedings and intentionally trying to impede his trial. And that was apparent from his demeanor yesterday when I saw him. . . . [T]he Court notes from the court file that Mr. Mee had at least one court-appointed attorney that he fired. Then he retained Mr. Williams; he fired Mr. Williams. Then he came in front of Judge Abernathy and said he wanted to proceed pro se. He told Judge Abernathy [and] Judge Stephens ... that he would not recognize this Court [H]e refused to participate yesterday and would not sit and would not recognize the Court\u2019s contempt powers. So despite Mr. Mee\u2019s protestations that he does not understand these proceedings, the Court is of the opinion that he understands these proceedings very well, and just is not recognizing the Court[.] . . . He\u2019s obstructing these proceedings.\nTo summarize the procedural background:\n5 January 2012: Defendant was arrested.\n6 January 2012: Defendant appeared in district court and signed a waiver of his right to appointed counsel.\n6 June 2012: Defendant appealed in district court, refused to check any of the options on a waiver of counsel form, and signed the form as \u201cKenneth Mee Bey.\u201d Handwritten notes state that defendant refused to address the court regarding counsel, and that he had previously hired an attorney, Alton Williams, who had been permitted to withdraw due to ethical concerns.\n30 July 2012: Defendant appeared in superior court before Judge Stephens and refused to enter a plea or to clearly state his wishes regarding counsel, instead making statements regarding his legal status and demanding to see the court\u2019s oath of office so that he could file \u201ca counterclaim.\u201d Judge Stephens entered a plea of not guilty, appointed the public defender to represent him, and revoked defendant\u2019s bond.\n22 August 2012: Defendant appeared before Judge Stephens, represented by assistant public defender Stephanie Davis. He allowed Ms. Davis to request a bond reduction, but would not allow her to enter a plea on his behalf, and stated that he objected to the court\u2019s jurisdiction. Judge Stephens entered a plea of not guilty and denied defendant\u2019s request for a modification of bond.\n25 October 2012: Mr. Williams filed a notice of representation. Ms. Davis\u2019s motion to withdraw was allowed.\n29 October 2012: Mr. Williams represented defendant in superior court before Judge Paul Gessner, where he made a \u201cgeneral appearance\u201d on defendant\u2019s behalf and told the court that defendant was \u201csubmitting himself\u2019 to the court\u2019s jurisdiction and would withdraw his pro se motions challenging the jurisdiction of the North Carolina courts. Mr. Williams asked for a bond reduction, assuring the court that defendant\u2019s objection to the court\u2019s jurisdiction was no longer an issue.\n30 November 2012: Mr. Williams filed a motion for continuance, which was granted by Judge Howard Manning.\n4 February 2013: Defendant appeared before Judge Abernathy. The prosecutor stated that defendant had resumed his challenge to the court\u2019s jurisdiction. When Mr. Williams said he was ready to proceed, defendant objected, insisting he was present only to challenge jurisdiction and that Mr. Williams was not his attorney. Defendant asserted that he was not subject to the court\u2019s jurisdiction, and the court denied his motions to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. In response to the court\u2019s statements on any subject other than jurisdiction, defendant claimed that he did \u201cnot understand\u201d what was said, without identifying the source of his confusion, and objected to the court speaking on any subject other than jurisdiction. He refused to sign a waiver of counsel or state his wishes regarding representation and informed the court that he would \u201cnever participate\u201d in a trial. Judge Abernathy appointed Mr. Williams as standby counsel and found that defendant waived the right to counsel and was proceeding pro se.\n25 March 2013: Defendant was in court for trial and engaged in an extensive colloquy with the trial court, during which he refused to state his wishes regarding counsel, alleged that he did \u201cnot understand\u201d any subject other than jurisdiction, argued -with the trial court, repeatedly insisted that he would not participate in the trial, and was held in contempt three times for refusing to sit down. Defendant left the courtroom and was not present during his trial.\nIn sum, defendant appeared before at least four different judges over a period of fourteen months, during which time he hired and then fired counsel twice, was briefly represented by an assistant public defender, refused to indicate his wishes with respect to counsel, advanced unsupported legal theories concerning jurisdiction, and claimed not to understand anything that was said on a subject other than jurisdiction. When the case was called for trial, defendant refused to participate in the trial. \u201cSuch purposeful conduct and tactics to delay and frustrate the orderly processes of our trial courts simply cannot be condoned. Defendant, by his own conduct, forfeited his right to counsel and the trial court was not required to determine, pursuant to G.S. \u00a7 15A-1242, that defendant had knowingly, understandingly, and voluntarily waived such right before requiring him to proceed pro se.\u201d Montgomery at 525, 530 S.E.2d at 69 (citing McFadderi).\nDefendant acknowledges the extensive procedural history of this case and concedes that defendant was \u201cdisagreeable, suspicious, and obsessed with legally irrelevant matters.\u201d He argues, however, that defendant should not be held to have forfeited his right to counsel because he \u201cdid not threaten counsel or court personnel\u201d and \u201cwas not abusive.\u201d Defendant contends that forfeiture requires evidence that he \u201casserted his position by means of serious misconduct that prevented the court from making a determination about whether he was competent and wanted to make a knowing and understanding waiver of his right to counsel.\u201d Defendant thus posits that, unless a defendant is physically abusive or prevents the court from informing him of his right to counsel, the defendant\u2019s behavior cannot support a finding that he forfeited the right to counsel. Defendant cites no authority for this position, and we know of none. \u201cAny willful actions on the part of the defendant that result in the absence of defense counsel constitutes a forfeiture of the right to counsel.\u201d State v. Quick, 179 N.C. App. 647, 649-50, 634 S.E.2d 915, 917 (2006) (citing Montgomery at 524, 530 S.E.2d at 69). Moreover, defendant was held in contempt three times by the trial court, which indicates .that his behavior was somewhat disruptive.\nWe also note that in State v. Leyshon, 211 N.C. App. 511, 710 S.E.2d 282, appeal dismissed, 365 N.C. 338, 717 S.E.2d 566 (2011), we held in a similar factual context that the defendant had forfeited his right to counsel. In Leyshon, as in the present case, the defendant \u201crefused to answer whether he waived or asserted his right to counsel,\u201d \u201cmade contradictory statements about his right to counsel,\u201d and contended that he was not subject to the court\u2019s jurisdiction. Leyshon, 211 N.C. App. at 517, 710 S.E.2d at 287. We held that he had forfeited the right to counsel:\n[The defendant] obstructed and delayed the trial proceedings. The record shows that Defendant refused to sign the waiver of counsel form filed on 19 July 2007 after a hearing before the trial court. At the 7 January 2008 hearing, the court. . . repeatedly asked if Defendant wanted an attorney. Defendant refused to answer, arguing instead, \u201cI want to find out if the Court has jurisdiction before I waive anything.\u201d . . . Likewise, at the 14 July 2008 hearing, Defendant would not respond to the court\u2019s inquiry regarding whether he wanted an attorney.... At the next hearing on 13 July 2009, Defendant continued to challenge the court\u2019s jurisdiction and still would not answer the court\u2019s inquiry regarding whether he wanted an attorney or would represent himself. . . . Based on the evidence in the record, we conclude Defendant willfully obstructed and delayed the trial court proceedings by continually refusing to state whether he wanted an attorney or would represent himself when directly asked by the trial court at four different hearings. Accordingly, Defendant forfeited his right to counsel[.]\nLeyshon at 518-19, 710 S.E.2d at 288-89. Based on Leyshon and similar cases, we hold that defendant engaged in \u201cpurposeful conduct and tactics to delay and frustrate the orderly processes of our trial courts\u201d that resulted in a forfeiture of his right to counsel. Montgomery, id. \u201cBecause forfeiture does not require a knowing and voluntary waiver of the right to counsel, the inquiry pursuant to section 15A-1242 is not required in such cases.\u201d State v. Boyd, 200 N.C. App. 97, 102, 682 S.E.2d 463, 467 (2009) (citing Montgomery), disc. review denied,_N.C._, 691 S.E.2d 414 (2010). Accordingly, we need not address defendant\u2019s argument that the trial court failed to conduct the inquiry required under N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 15A-1242.\nWe conclude that the defendant had a fair trial, free of error.\nNO ERROR.\nJudges McGEE and ERVIN concur.\n. The sole issue raised on appeal concerns the circumstances under which defendant proceeded to trial pro se. Given that defendant does not otherwise challenge the conduct of the trial or the factual basis for the charges, we find it unnecessary to set out further facts of the case in detail.\n. Defendant also makes generalized references to the possibility that he \u201casserted his position because of ignorance, [or] some form of limited mental capacity or [mental] illness[.]\u201d However, defendant does not identify any evidence that raises an issue concerning defendant\u2019s competence, and we discern none.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "STEELMAN, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney General Roy Cooper by Special Deputy Attorney General David Ejirdfor the State.",
      "W. Michael Spivey for defendant-appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. KENNETH CARROLL MEE\nNo. COA13-1035\nFiled 15 April 2014\nConstitutional Law \u2014 right to counsel \u2014 forfeited\u2014defendant\u2019s behavior\nDefendant forfeited his right to the assistance of counsel where he first waived his right to appointed counsel, retained and then fired counsel twice, was briefly represented by an assistant public defender, and refused to state his wishes with respect to representation, instead arguing that he was not subject to the court\u2019s jurisdiction and would not participate in the trial, and ultimately chose to absent himself from the courtroom during the trial.\nAppeal by defendant from judgments entered 27 March 2013 by Judge Michael J. O\u2019Foghludha in Wake County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 4 February 2014.\nAttorney General Roy Cooper by Special Deputy Attorney General David Ejirdfor the State.\nW. Michael Spivey for defendant-appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0542-01",
  "first_page_order": 552,
  "last_page_order": 573
}
