Waiving the Assistance of Counsel in District Court Cases

Suppose that when a criminal defendant appears in court, he is advised of the right to have counsel appointed if indigent, tells the judge he wants to hire his own lawyer, and signs a written waiver of his right to appointed counsel. When the defendant next appears in court, he does not have a lawyer. May the judge rely on the waiver of appointed counsel to require the defendant to proceed, without inquiring whether the defendant wants the assistance of counsel? Several superior court cases involving this type of situation—most recently, State v. Blakeney, ___ N.C. App. ___, 782 S.E.2d 88 (Feb. 16, 2016)—have reached the North Carolina appellate courts. The outcome is familiar: conviction reversed if the superior court judge required the defendant to represent himself without making a further inquiry. The reason is also familiar: a waiver of appointed counsel does not constitute a waiver of the right to the assistance of all counsel. If a defendant appears without a lawyer after waiving the right to appointed counsel, the judge ordinarily must inquire whether the defendant wishes to proceed without counsel and, if so, obtain a waiver of the assistance of all counsel. See, e.g., State v. McCrowre, 312 N.C. 478 (1984). The same constitutional principles apply to cases resolved in district court, but those cases rarely make it to the appellate courts. A recent opinion by the North Carolina Judicial Standards Commission recognizes that district courts must follow these principles and willfully failing to do so violates the [...]