State v. Forte, ___ N.C. App. ___, ___ S.E.2d ___ (Jul. 3, 2018)

The trial court did not err in concluding that the defendant forfeited his right to counsel. When the case came on for trial, the defendant was represented by his 3^rd attorney, Smith, who moved to withdraw citing irreconcilable differences with the defendant. The court of appeals described what then transpired as follows:

Defendant tried to speak twice as the trial court called the case for trial. Defendant interrupted Smith as Smith addressed his motion to withdraw. Smith explained to the trial court how Defendant refused to answer Smith’s questions about the case, and how Defendant frequently interrupted him. Defendant argued with Smith about undisputed issues. Defendant also told Smith he would present evidence, but refused to tell Smith the substance of the evidence. Additionally, Defendant did not believe Smith’s explanation of the law. Finally, Defendant filed a complaint against Smith with the State Bar.

Defendant constantly interrupted the trial court as it tried to explain to Defendant his right to be represented by counsel. Because Defendant would not allow the trial court to discuss Defendant’s rights to counsel, the trial court excused Defendant and Smith from the courtroom in order for Smith to explain involuntary waiver or forfeiture of counsel. Additionally, in addressing a discovery dispute, the trial court instructed Defendant to hand up everything he had for the court to review. Defendant obstructed handing discovery to Smith to hand to the trial court. The court found Defendant continually interrupted the court for two hours, and he often refused to listen to questions and answer the questions as the trial court was trying to go over his right to counsel. The trial court found Defendant was not trying to understand the process, but was rather just being difficult.

The trial court determined that the defendant’s actions in refusing to cooperate with his lawyer and to be argumentative with his lawyer and the trial court were willful and intentional and designed to obstruct and delay the proceedings. The trial court therefore found that the defendant had forfeited his right to counsel. Noting that there is no bright line rule as to the degree of misconduct that justifies a forfeiture of the right to counsel, the court held that the trial court properly found a forfeiture in this case.