State v. Fuller

Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 2025 · Criminal Law

Criminal LawRight to CounselRight to Be PresentStandby CounselSentencingPrior Record LevelSubstantial Similarityforfeiture of counsel

Facts

Before trial, Defendant gave conflicting answers about whether he wanted counsel, refused to cooperate with appointed counsel, repeatedly interrupted proceedings, challenged the court’s authority, and accused the court of lying. During trial, after multiple warnings, he disrupted jury selection and was removed from the courtroom, but the court repeatedly offered him the chance to return if he assured good behavior and sent written trial updates because no audio/video system was available. The court did not appoint standby counsel, concluding Defendant would not cooperate and that standby counsel would be put in a difficult position. At sentencing, the court treated Defendant’s prior Virginia identity-theft conviction as substantially similar to North Carolina identity theft and calculated him as prior record level III.

Issue

Did the trial court err by concluding Defendant forfeited his right to counsel and his right to be present at trial, and by declining to appoint standby counsel after his removal from the courtroom? Did the trial court also err in treating Defendant’s Virginia identity-theft conviction as substantially similar to North Carolina identity theft for prior-record-level purposes?

Rule

A defendant forfeits the right to counsel when his egregious, dilatory, or abusive conduct seriously obstructs proceedings and frustrates the purposes of the right to counsel; unlike waiver, forfeiture does not require a knowing and intentional relinquishment. A defendant may forfeit the right to be present if, after warning, he continues to behave so disorderly, disruptive, and disrespectfully that trial cannot proceed in an orderly manner; under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-1032, the court must record the reasons, instruct the jury not to consider removal on guilt, and give the defendant reasonable opportunities to learn of proceedings and return upon assurance of good behavior. Appointment of standby counsel is discretionary, not a right. For sentencing, substantial similarity of an out-of-state offense is a question of law determined by comparing elements, and the State must prove similarity by a preponderance of the evidence.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Durham, North Carolina, Malik Turner appeared at four pretrial hearings on fraud charges. Each time the judge asked whether he wanted appointed counsel, Malik alternated between saying he wanted a lawyer, refusing to answer directly, and insisting he was only a "secured representative" and that the court had no authority over him; he also refused to meet with the lawyer the court appointed and repeatedly interrupted the hearings.

If the trial judge rules that Malik forfeited his right to counsel, which is the strongest basis for affirmance?

Explanation. Forfeiture of counsel arises from egregious, dilatory, or abusive conduct that seriously obstructs proceedings and undermines the purposes of the right to counsel. Conflicting positions about counsel, refusal to cooperate with appointed counsel, and repeated interruptions support forfeiture. A written waiver is not the key, frivolous arguments alone are insufficient, and felony defendants do have a right to counsel absent waiver or forfeiture. (Derived from State v. Fuller (n.d.).)