Legal Opinion

State v. Cunningham

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided September 6, 1996No. 232A91-3PublishedCited by 14 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

WEBB, Justice.

The defendant first assigns error to the failure of the court to appoint counsel to represent him. He contends he did not unequivocally waive his right to counsel. The record contains two separate forms, signed by the defendant and a superior court judge, which recite that the defendant waived his right to counsel after being fully advised of his rights and fully understanding the consequences of his action as required by N.C.G.S. § 7A-457 and N.C.G.S. § 15A-1242.

The defendant says that the record shows that in spite of these written waivers of counsel, the defendant equivocated…

2Cases cited42 opinions

  1. Anders v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1967
  2. Miranda v. ArizonaSupreme Court of the United States · 1966
  3. Faretta v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1975
  4. Snyder v. MassachusettsSupreme Court of the United States · 1934
  5. Pennsylvania v. RitchieSupreme Court of the United States · 1987

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

3Cited by14 opinions

  1. State v. GolphinSupreme Court of North Carolina · 2000
  2. State v. FlowersSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1997
  3. State v. LocklearSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1998
  4. State v. BowmanSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1998
  5. State v. PrivetteCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2012

9 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