## NO. 12

- 22

- 00058 -CR

IN THE COUR T OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT
TYLER, TEXAS

LARS AXEL THEORINE , APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS , APPELLEE §

§

§ APPEA L FROM THE 241ST

JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

SMITH COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORANDU M OPINION Appellant, Lars Axel The orine, appeals his conviction for murder. In one issue, he challenges the trial court ’ s denial of his motion to represent himself at trial. We a ffirm

.

B ACKGROUND 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 j ury trial. Appellant was represented by appointed counsel during jury selec tion on March 21, 2022 ( as he had been during the approximately two years following his indictment for murd er ), and a jury was selected and sworn

. On the following day, before the jury was b ro ught into the

co urtroom to begin hearing evidence, Appell ant in form ed his attorney that he wished to proceed

pro se. Consequently, Appellant’ s appointed counsel made an o ral m otion to t he trial court that Appellant be allowed to represent himself. The tria l court took judicial notice of pri or

1 T EX

. P E NAL C ODE A NN

. § 19.02 (West 2023 ).2 proceedi ngs in th e case at which Appellant was represented by appointed counsel, stated that Appellant’ s invocation of his right to self

- representa tion was untimely , and denied the motion. Trial proceeded as scheduled , with appointed counsel representin g Appellant. The jur y found Appellant “guilty,” and imposed a sentence of life imprisonment. This appeal followed.

S ELF -R EPRESENTAT ION In his sole iss ue, Appellant contends that the trial court abused its discretion in refusing to
allow him to represent himself at trial.
In all c riminal prosecutions, the accused has the right to have the assistance of counsel for
hi s defense. U.S. C ON ST . a mend 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 crimina l 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 L athem v. State , 514 S.W.3d 796, 802 (Tex. App.

— Fort Worth 2017, pet. ref ’ d). An accused must assert his right to self

represent ation in a timely manner, namely, before a jury is impaneled. McDuff v. State , 939
S.W.2d 607, 619 (Tex. Cr im. A pp. 1997); Blank enship 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 ha ve 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 evide nce in the light most favorable to
the trial court ’s ruling. Id. at 802. In this case, after voir dire o n M arch 21, 2022 , the tria l judge brought the twelve chosen jurors into the courtroom and instructed them to stand and raise their right hands . T he tri al judge
admini stered the oath to the twelve jurors , and thereafter stated, “ The record will reflect all 12 juro rs have just stood, raised their right hand, [and] taken the oath as a juror .” Finally, the judge gave the jury further instructions, gav e the jur ors an opportunity to ask questions, and released them for the day. Appellant ’ s request for self

- representat ion did not occur unt il the next morning , j ust before the jury was brought into the courtroom . He acknowledges in his brief that his requ est was made after the jury was selected and sworn. Therefore, Appellant ’ s asserti on of3 his right to self

- representat ion was untimely. See M cDuff , 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. , no t designated for publicat ion) ( no abus e of discretion when appellant requested self

- represent ation the morning after jury was impaneled, just before beginning o f trial ). Because Appellant did not timely assert his right to represent himself, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by deny in g 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; Birdw ell , 10 S.W.3d at 77. Accordingly, we overrule Appellant’ s sole issue.

D ISPOSITION Having overruled Appellant’s sol e issue, we affirm the tri al court’ s ju dgm ent.
G REG N EELEY Justice Opinion delivered September 6, 2023. Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoy le, J., and Neeley, J.

( DO NOT PUBLISH )

## CO URT OF APPEALS

TWELFT H COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF T EX AS

JUDGMENT

SEPTEMBER 6, 2023

NO. 12-22-00058- CR

LARS AXEL THEORINE , Appellant V. THE STATE O F TEXAS , Appellee

Appeal from the 241st District C ourt 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 the re w as no error in the judgment. It is therefore ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that the judgment
of the court below be in all thin gs affirmed , for which execution may issue, and that this
decision be certif ied to the court below for observance. Greg Neeley , Ju st ice

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