NO. 12-22-00058-CR 

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

LARS AXEL THEORINE, 

APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, 

APPELLEE

§

§ 

§ 

APPEAL FROM THE 241ST 

JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT 

SMITH COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant, Lars Axel Theorine, appeals his conviction for murder. In one issue, he 

challenges the trial court’s denial of his motion to represent himself at trial. We affirm. 

BACKGROUND

On March 17, 2020, Appellant was indicted for the offense of murder.1 The indictment 

alleged that on January 2, 2020, Appellant intentionally and knowingly caused the death of 

Michael Reed by stabbing and cutting him with a sharp object and striking him in the head with a 

blunt object, and used or exhibited a deadly weapon in committing the offense. Appellant 

pleaded “not guilty,” and this matter proceeded to a jury trial.

Appellant was represented by appointed counsel during jury selection on March 21, 2022

(as he had been during the approximately two years following his indictment for murder), and a 

jury was selected and sworn. On the following day, before the jury was brought into the 

courtroom to begin hearing evidence, Appellant informed his attorney that he wished to proceed 

pro se. Consequently, Appellant’s appointed counsel made an oral motion to the trial court that 

Appellant be allowed to represent himself. The trial court took judicial notice of prior 

1

 TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 19.02 (West 2023). 
2 

proceedings in the case at which Appellant was represented by appointed counsel, stated that 

Appellant’s invocation of his right to self-representation was untimely, and denied the motion. 

Trial proceeded as scheduled, with appointed counsel representing Appellant. The jury 

found Appellant “guilty,” and imposed a sentence of life imprisonment. This appeal followed. 

SELF-REPRESENTATION

In his sole issue, Appellant contends that the trial court abused its discretion in refusing to 

allow him to represent himself at trial.

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused has the right to have the assistance of counsel for 

his defense. U.S. CONST. amend VI. If a criminal defendant elects to proceed without counsel, he 

has a constitutional right to do so. See Indiana v. Edwards, 554 U.S. 164, 170, 128 S. Ct. 2379, 

2383, 171 L. Ed. 2d 345 (2008); Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806, 819-20, 95 S. Ct. 2525, 

2533, 45 L. Ed. 2d 562 (1975). While a criminal defendant’s right to counsel remains in effect 

until the defendant waives it, the defendant’s right to self-representation is not triggered until it is 

asserted. Faretta, 422 U.S. at 835, 95 S. Ct. at 2541; see also Lathem v. State, 514 S.W.3d 796, 

802 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2017, pet. ref’d). An accused must assert his right to selfrepresentation in a timely manner, namely, before a jury is impaneled. McDuff v. State, 939 

S.W.2d 607, 619 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997); Blankenship v. State, 673 S.W.2d 578, 585 (Tex. 

Crim. App. 1984); Birdwell v. State, 10 S.W.3d 74, 77 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1999, 

pet. ref’d)). A jury has been impaneled when those who have been chosen to serve have been 

selected and sworn. Lathem, 514 S.W.3d at 810. We review the denial of a defendant’s request 

to represent himself for abuse of discretion, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to 

the trial court’s ruling. Id. at 802. 

In this case, after voir dire on March 21, 2022, the trial judge brought the twelve chosen 

jurors into the courtroom and instructed them to stand and raise their right hands. The trial judge 

administered the oath to the twelve jurors, and thereafter stated, “The record will reflect all 12 

jurors have just stood, raised their right hand, [and] taken the oath as a juror.” Finally, the judge 

gave the jury further instructions, gave the jurors an opportunity to ask questions, and released 

them for the day. Appellant’s request for self-representation did not occur until the next 

morning, just before the jury was brought into the courtroom. He acknowledges in his brief that 

his request was made after the jury was selected and sworn. Therefore, Appellant’s assertion of 
3 

his right to self-representation was untimely. See McDuff, 939 S.W.2d at 619; Blankenship, 

573 S.W.2d at 585; Birdwell, 10 S.W.3d at 77; see also Rodriguez v. State, No. 2-07-332-CR, 

2008 WL 5057028, at *1 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Nov. 26, 2008, pet. ref’d) (mem. op., not 

designated for publication) (no abuse of discretion when appellant requested self-representation 

the morning after jury was impaneled, just before beginning of trial). Because Appellant did not 

timely assert his right to represent himself, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying 

his motion. See McDuff, 939 S.W.2d at 619; Blankenship, 673 S.W.2d at 585; Lathem, 514 

S.W.3d at 802-03; Birdwell, 10 S.W.3d at 77. Accordingly, we overrule Appellant’s sole issue.

DISPOSITION

Having overruled Appellant’s sole issue, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.

GREG NEELEY

Justice

Opinion delivered September 6, 2023. 

Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J., and Neeley, J.

(DO NOT PUBLISH)
COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

JUDGMENT 

SEPTEMBER 6, 2023 

NO. 12-22-00058-CR

LARS AXEL THEORINE, 

Appellant 

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, 

Appellee

Appeal from the 241st District Court 

of Smith County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. 241-0470-20) 

THIS CAUSE came to be heard on the appellate record and briefs filed 

herein, and the same being considered, it is the opinion of this court that there was no error in the 

judgment. 

It is therefore ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that the judgment 

of the court below be in all things affirmed, for which execution may issue, and that this 

decision be certified to the court below for observance. 

Greg Neeley, Justice. Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J., and Neeley, J.