in a disruptive manner during the 'guilt phase of his assault trial, defendant did nonsensically interrupt the testimony of one witness and began muttering. Defendant also interrupted the voir dire of his treating psychiatrist to say “good morning.” Further, it is telling that when the trial court noted defendant’s presence for the record before delivering the final jury instructions, defendant interjected “Not nearly present at all. Elsewhere. You can continue, your Honor.” Moreover, during the assault trial, defendant never had an extended colloquy with the trial court or testified in a manner that demonstrated his understanding of the nature of the proceedings or his ability to assist in his own defense. Cf. State v. Staten, 172 N.C. App. 673, 679-84, 616 S.E.2d 650, 655-58 (2005) (<HOLDING>), app. dismissed, and disc. rev. denied, 360
holding that the trial court committed no abuse of discretion in denying the appointment of the defendants requested expert as there was no undue prejudice to the defendant because the defendants claim on the predicted effect of the experts testimony was purely speculative holding that in light of the trial courts inquiry the defendants verbal responses and the defendants answers to the questions on the transcript of plea the trial court did determine that defendant was fully informed of the consequences of his choice to enter an alford plea holding that there was not substantial evidence of the defendants incompetence where his testimony though somewhat rambling showed that he was accurately oriented regarding his present circumstances and knew the offenses with which he was charged citation omitted holding that the defendants confession was erroneously admitted into evidence over objection and the court erred in not sustaining the defendants motion for judgment of acquittal where there was no evidence which tended to establish that the fire was incendiary or which corroborated the defendants statements holding that there was not substantial evidence of the defendants incompetence where the defendant and trial court engaged in a lengthy voluntariness colloquy wherein the defendants responses were lucid and responsive and the defendants testimony was largely rational