where the defendant elects to testify. See generally, State v. Fortney, 201 N.C. App. 662, 687 S.E.2d 518 (2010), State v. Little, 191 N.C. App. 655, 664 S.E.2d 432, disc. rev. denied, 362 N.C. 685, 671 S.E.2d 326 (2008), and State v. Faison, 128 N.C. App. 745, 497 S.E.2d 111 (1998); but see State v. Tice, 191 N.C. App. 506, 511, 664 S.E.2d 368, 372 (2008) (in a case where the defendant did testify, deciding that defendant failed to show ineffective assistance by failing to raise such an argument under Old Chief). Here, where defendant did testify, he was subject to impeachment on the basis of his prior convictions, even though he had already stipulated to being a convicted felon for purposes of the firearm possession charge. See United States v. Kemp, 546 F.3d 759, 763 (6th Cir. 2008) (<HOLDING>). The trial court did not err in permitting the
holding that an individual charged with criminal contempt is entitled to the full procedural protections afforded the defendant in any other criminal proceeding holding that the protection afforded by old chief can recede when a criminal defendant chooses to testify at trial holding that right to testify not denied where inter alia defendant made no objection to his attorneys statements that defendant would not testify and made no request to testify holding that a conviction for an offense involving dishonesty or false statement may be used to impeach the credibility of a defendant who chooses to testify holding that a defendant who chooses to testify in his or her own defense may not conceal contradictory statements obtained in violation of the fifth amendment from the jury