Legal Opinion

State v. Messick

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

Decided January 19, 1988No. 8730SC588PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

ARNOLD, Judge.

In his first assignment of error, defendant contends that the trial court erred in allowing him to represent himself at trial because the record fails to show a knowing and intelligent waiver of the right to counsel.

A criminal defendant has a constitutional right to the assistance of competent counsel in his defense. Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 (1963). Implicit in defendant’s constitutional right to counsel is the right to refuse the assistance of counsel and conduct his own defense. Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (1975). In its decisions both prior to and after…

2Cases cited15 opinions

  1. Faretta v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1975
  2. Blockburger v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1931
  3. Gideon v. WainwrightSupreme Court of the United States · 1963
  4. State v. GardnerSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1986
  5. State v. ThackerSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1980

10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. United States v. Edgar Parral-DominguezCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 2015
  2. State v. KinlockCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2002
  3. State v. LambCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1991
  4. State v. DowdleCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2005
  5. State v. KinlockCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2002

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API