State v. Pierce, COA23-348, ___ N.C. App. ___ (Sept. 3, 2024)

In this Durham County case, defendant appealed after pleading guilty to crimes against nature and sexual battery, arguing his waiver of indictment was invalid because he was not represented by counsel at the time. The Court of Appeals disagreed, affirming the judgment against defendant. 

Defendant was indicted for statutory rape, kidnapping, and related charges in February of 2017. From his first appearance to the trial, defendant was provided five court-appointed attorneys, either as representation or standby counsel after defendant decided to represent himself. At the time defendant signed a waiver of indictment, he was not represented by counsel but had standby counsel available; the standby counsel did not sign the waiver. 

Defendant’s argument relied on G.S. 15A-642, specifically the provisions in subsection (b) that prohibit waiver of indictment when “the defendant is not represented by counsel” and subsection (c) that reference signature by defendant and his attorney. The court reviewed the three cases cited by defendant to support his argument, holding “[defendant’s] case is distinguishable because he had previously waived multiple appointed counsels and had elected to proceed pro se.” Slip Op. at 6-7. Moving to the statute, the court first explained that defendant had used the appointed counsel system to delay his trial and had knowingly proceeded without counsel when waiving the indictment. The court also determined that any prejudicial error by the trial court was invited by defendant, explaining that defendant “created any purported error of proceeding unrepresented through his own demands when signing the Waiver of Indictment after he deliberately chose to proceed pro se.” Id. at 10.