State v Costa
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute controlling legal authority. Citation is disfavored, but may be permitted in accordance with the provisions of Rule 30(e)(3) of the North Carolina Rules of Appellate Procedure. NO. COA12-206 NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS Filed: 21 August 2012 STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. Macon County Nos. 11 CRS 50104, 50105 KATHLEEN R. COSTA Appeal by defendant from judgments entered 27 July 2011 by Judge Sharon T. Barrett in Macon County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 6 August 2012. Roy Cooper, Attorney General, by Ellen A. Newby, Associate Attorney General, for the State. Staples S. Hughes, Appellate Defender, by John F. Carella and Mary Jane K. Cook, Assistant Appellate Defenders, for defendant-appellant. MARTIN, Chief Judge. Defendant Kathleen R. Costa appeals from judgments entered upon jury verdicts finding her guilty of two counts of resisting a public official. officer and two counts of assault on a government Defendant contends the trial court erred by: (1) denying her motion for substitute counsel, and (2) failing to order an inquiry into her competency during the trial. We find 2 no error. On 31 January 2011, deputies of the Macon County Sheriff s Office arrived at defendant s home pursuant to an order for her arrest for failure to appear in court. Defendant refused to leave her home and claimed that the arrest order was part of a conspiracy before slamming the door. The deputies entered the home with the permission of defendant s son and found defendant in her bedroom. An altercation followed during which defendant struck one deputy in the throat and another deputy in the face and stomach. a public Defendant was charged with two counts of resisting officer and two counts of assault on a government official. Defendant filed a pretrial motion to suppress all evidence, alleging that the law bedroom was unlawful. enforcement officers entry case was called for trial the next day. counsel, representing her. her On 25 July 2011, the trial court heard and denied defendant s pretrial motion to suppress. defendant s into Mr. Goss, Defendant s Before the trial began, moved to withdraw from Mr. Goss informed the court that defendant had requested he withdraw because defendant claimed that her civil rights had been violated. Defendant told the court she wished to replace her counsel but did not want to represent herself and was unable to afford to hire other counsel. The court noted defendant had a substitution of counsel earlier in 3 the case, then asked defendant why she did not want Mr. Goss to represent her. Defendant responded, Inefficient defense. When the court asked if she had any additional support for her motion, defendant replied, No, your Honor. insufficient grounds for substitution of The court found counsel and denied defendant s motion. On direct and cross-examination, defendant testified that her arrest was part of a conspiracy. During defendant s testimony, she was interrupted several times by her counsel and by objections from opposing counsel. Also the court instructed defendant to limit her responses to questions she was asked and not to testify to whatever she wanted to say. The jury returned verdicts of guilty on all charges, and the court sentenced defendant to seventy-five days imprisonment. The trial judge reconvene at recessed 2:30 p.m. court to and asked address the defendant s parties to probation violation in a separate matter. Upon counsel reconvening informed the for court the probation that hearing, defendant had defendant s indicated she would refuse food and water, which led counsel to question her competency. she was ordered Defendant twice denied being incompetent, insisting only a competency standing forensic before up for her examination proceeding civil to further rights. determine with the The court defendant s probation 4 violation hearing. Defendant appeals from the judgment entered upon the jury s verdicts. _________________________ I. Defendant contends the trial court abused its discretion in denying her further motion for into the nature substitute of counsel defendant s without conflict inquiring with her counsel. An abuse of discretion standard of review is applied to determine if a trial court erred in denying a motion to have counsel removed. State v. Jones, 357 N.C. 409, 413, 584 S.E.2d 751, 754 (2003), remanded on other grounds, 168 N.C. App. 408, 607 S.E.2d 705 (2005). Abuse of discretion occurs when the trial manifestly court s ruling is unsupported by reason. State v. T.D.R., 347 N.C. 489, 503, 495 S.E.2d 700, 708 (1998). An indigent defendant does not have the right to choose his or her court appointed counsel. State v. McNeil, 263 N.C. 260, 270, 139 S.E.2d 667, 674 (1965). A court need not perform an in-depth inquiry in every case in which it is presented with a motion for substitution of counsel. See State v. Thacker, 301 N.C. 348, 353, 271 S.E.2d 252, 256 (1980). Rather, a court must only determine if current counsel is able to render competent assistance and that the conflict between counsel and client is not of a nature that would render assistance ineffective. Id. 5 In this case, defendant has not shown that her counsel was unable to perform his duties to the objectively reasonable level his profession requires. the trial court [i]nefficient in The only reason defendant presented to support defense. of When her motion asked for was a claim additional of support, defendant did not give the court any information regarding the alleged conflict with her counsel. The court had an opportunity to observe the relationship between defendant and her counsel during the pretrial suppression hearing and thus had sufficient knowledge to determine the competency of defendant s counsel and his ability to render adequate assistance. As defendant did not provide any additional evidence supporting her motion for substitute counsel, defendant failed to prove that the trial court s manifestly unsupported by reason. 495 S.E.2d at 708. denial of her motion was T.D.R., 347 N.C. at 503, Therefore, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant s motion for substitute counsel. II. Defendant also contends the trial court erred in failing to order an inquiry into defendant s competency during her trial. We disagree. Determination trial court s of a defendant s discretion, conclusive on appeal. and if competency supported by is within evidence, the is See State v. Willard, 292 N.C. 567, 575, 6 234 S.E.2d 587, 592 (1977); State v. Nobles, 99 N.C. App. 473, 475, 393 S.E.2d 328, 329 (1990). Under N.C.G.S. § 15A-1001(a), a person must not be: tried, convicted, sentenced, or punished for a crime when by reason of mental illness or defect he is unable to understand the nature and object of the proceedings against him, to comprehend his own situation in reference to the proceedings, or to assist in his defense in a rational or reasonable manner. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-1001(a) (2011). The trial court has a duty to conduct a competency hearing sua sponte where there is substantial evidence before the court suggesting that the defendant may not be mentally competent to stand trial. State v. Whitted, ____ N.C. App. ____, ____, 705 S.E.2d 787, 791 (2011) (quoting State v. Badgett, 361 N.C. 234, 259, 644 S.E.2d 206, 221 (2007)). irrational behavior, his [E]vidence of a defendant s demeanor at trial, and any prior medical opinion on competence to stand trial are all relevant to a bona fide doubt inquiry. State v. McRae, 139 N.C. App. 387, 390, 533 S.E.2d 557, 559 (2000) (quoting Drope v. Missouri, 420 U.S. 162, 180, 43 L. Ed. 2d 103, 118 (1975)), cert. denied, 356 N.C. 442, 573 S.E.2d 160 (2002), appeal after remand, 163 N.C. App. 359, 594 S.E.2d 71, appeal dismissed and disc. review denied, 358 N.C. 548, 599 S.E.2d 911 (2004). Great deference is given to defense counsel s representation that his or her client is competent because counsel is usually in the best position to 7 determine the client s ability to understand the proceedings and assist in his or her own defense. State v. McRae, 163 N.C. App. at 359, 594 S.E.2d at 78, appeal dismissed and disc. review denied, 358 N.C. 548, 599 S.E.2d 911 (2004). In this case, the trial court did not have reason to doubt defendant s throughout behalf competency the trial illustrate her at and her her trial. Defendant s ability understanding to of ability to assist in her own defense. testify the on behavior her own proceedings and Additionally, defense counsel represented to the court that defendant was competent by proceeding with the trial and sentencing, without raising concerns about defendant s competency until court reconvened for the probation hearing. In ordering a forensic examination of defendant, the court specifically noted that it did not have any serious doubt regarding defendant s competency during the trial, but that defendant s post-trial statements and demeanor caused concern. See Whitted, ___ N.C. App. at ____, 705 S.E.2d at 792 (stating that a defendant s competency is not constant and may change over time). Defendant s Accordingly, we find no error below. No error. Judges STEPHENS and ERVIN concur. Report per Rule 30(e). argument is overruled.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
