NO. 07-07 -043 8-CR IN THE CO UR T OF APPEA LS FO R THE S EVEN TH D ISTRI CT O F TEXAS

AT AM AR ILLO PAN EL A DE CE MB ER29, 2008

_________

_________

_________

___ MICHAEL ANT HONY

DIAZ, APPE LLA NT v. THE S TATE OF TEXAS, APPEL LEE

_________

_________

_________

______ FRO M T HE 22 2 DIS T RI CT COU RT OF DE AF SMI T H CO UNT Y; ND NO. CR-07F-105; HON. ROLAND SAUL, PRESI DING

_________

_________

_________

____ Before CAMPBE LL, HANCOCK and PIRT LE, JJ. ME MO RA ND UM OPI NI ON App ellant , Michael Ant hon y Diaz , ap p e a ls his convi ction for assau lt on a pu blic serv ant , enh ance d by tw o prior felon y convictions, and subsequen t sent ence of 25 years confine ment i n the Ins ti tut io n a l Div is ion of the Tex as Dep artment of Cr imi nal Ju sti ce. T hrou gh tw o issues, app ellantconte nds th at he did notex ecut e a voluntary w aiver of his rig ht to assistan c e o f

coun sel and thathe w as de nied the right to assistan ce of coun sel. W e di sag re e and aff ir m the jud g ment of the tr ial co urt.2 Fac tual and Procedu ra l Back g ro und A p p e l l a n tw a s a r r e s t e d fo r t h e o ffe n s e o f p u b l i ci n t o x i c a t i o n . D u r i n g t h e b o o k i ng procedu re , app ell ant w as acc used of punching a j a ile r. A s a resul t of thi s a ll eg ati on, appel lan t w as ind ic ted for as saul t on a publ icse rv ant. After ind ic tment, appel lan t ex ecut ed an aff ida v itreg ardin g hi s fin anci al sta tus

. As a resul t of thi s a ff ida v it , t he tr ial co urt found app ell ant i ndige n t a n d , on J uly 3, 2007, appoi nted couns el to representappell ant. Appoint ed counse l subs eq uentl y f il ed a w aiv er of arraig nment on behal f of appel lan t o n J uly

20, 2007. Betw een t hat d ate a nd October 5, 20 07, t ri al couns el file d a number of pre- tr ial moti ons on beha lf of appel lan t, inc lud ing a mo tion to recuse th e trial judge. Ultimat ely, af ter a tw o da y

hea ring, the mo tion to recuse w as deni ed and the mat ter w as setfor

tr ial to beg in on October 9, 2007. D ur ing a pre- tr ial hea ring on Oct obe r 5, 200 7, ap pellan t, for the f ir s t time , requested thatthe trial court re li ev e hi s a ppoi nted attor ney . Dur ing a col loq uy w it h the courtreg ardin g the dis mis sal of t ri a l c o u n s e l, a p p e ll a n tst a t e d t h a th e h a d n o le ga l t ra in in g, t h o u gh h e h a d st u d ie d la w a li ttl e w hil e i n pr is on. Ul ti matel y , app ell ant s tated to the t rial co u rt thathe c oul d not re presenthi msel f and the is sue of dis mis si ng appel lan t’ s t ri al couns el w as re sol v ed. On O cto b e r the 9 , i mmediat ely before jur

y se lecti on w as sc hedul ed to beg in, th appel lan t ag ain asked to dis mis s his tri al coun sel , how ev er , this time appe ll ant o pin ed th at he c oul d representhi msel f. D ur ing the col loq uy thatfoll ow ed, the t ri al cour t i nq uired abou t the e xtent of appell ant’ s for mal educa ti on. Appel lan t repl ied that he w ent to the 1 1 g ra de th in sc hool but had c omplet ed hi s G ED w hil e i n pr is on. Fur ther , appell ant s tated thathe3

stu die d at Lee C oll eg e w hil e in pr is on and w as a c erti fied H VAC tec hni ci an. Appel lan t t hen professed thathe kne w he w as no t a para legal but tha t he felt he could rep resen t himse lf bet ter on th is case beca use he knew w hath app ene d. T he trial co urt cont inue d the inquiry by as ki ng appel lan t i f he knew anythi ng about jur y v oir dire. Appel lan t respon ded t hat h e w oul d tal k t o the j ur

y aboutw here the y

w or ked, i f they

w ere preju dic ed, a nd i f they had ev er se rv ed on a j ur

y . The tr ial courtthen adv is ed appell ant that there w ere a n umber of proce dure s thatw ould come in to play du ring the t rial, such as op enin g state me nts, crossex aminat ion of w it ness es, and the r ule s of ev ide nce. The tr ial co urt adv is ed appe ll ant t hat thes e procedu ra l and ev ide nti ar y matte rs tak e y ears t o mast er and that he w oul d be at a sev ere di sadv antag e. D u rin g thi s a dmonit ion , t he tr ial co urt adv is ed th at he had seen a number of defendants tr

y to re presentthems elv es and, in ev er y cas e, s elf- re present ati on tur ned outto be a dis ast er for t he defendant. Y et, appel lan t c onti nued t o i nsi st on th e r ig ht t o re p r e s e n th i ms e l f. F i n a l l y , t h e t r i a l c o u rtc o n t i n u e d t o p o i n to u tt h e d a n g e r o f s e l fre present ati on and the factthatappel lan t w oul d hav e to be hel d to the s ame st andard tha t a license d att orne y

w as he ld t o . T h e trial court state d tha t the court cou ld notassist app ellantand thathe w ould have to make h is ow n objection s and decision s. Appe llant still ins is ted o n represent ing hi msel f. T ow ard the concl usi on of the hear ing on a ppel lan t’ s r ig ht to s elf- re pre se n tation, appel lan t app eared to as k t o hav e hi s a ppoi nted lawy er st art t he case a nd, if ap pellan t did not like the job the app ointe d lawy er w as do ing, appe llant cou ld tak e ov er

the re present ati on. The tr ial co urt adv is ed app e lla n t that t he c our t c oul d not per mit a hy br id r e p re se ntati on. The appel lan t t hen s tated he w as g oin g to re present hims elf.4

The tr ial co urt adv is ed he w oul d per mit appoi nted couns el to s itat couns el tabl e as sta ndby att or ney , how ev er , he w oul d notbe a ll ow ed to par ti ci p a te as l ong as appel lan t ins is ted o n represent ing hi msel f

. T h e j u rypanel w as broug ht i n and v oir di re w as condu cte d w it h appel lan t c onduc ti ng hi s o w n v oir di re. O peni ng st atements w ere made w ith app ellantagain represen ting himself during this portion of

the trial. Af

ter the State ’s firs t w it ness co mplet ed di re ct ex aminat ion , app ell ant a ttempt ed to cross -e x amine the w it ness , butdrew

numerous obj ect ion s f ro m the State. At thi s t ime, appel lan t req uest ed the trial court to allow s t a n d by coun sel to take ov er the rep resen tatio n. T he trial cou rt per mitt ed s tandby

co unsel to ass ume the re present ati on, but admoni shed appel lan t t hat there w as to be no fur

ther sw it chi ng bac k t o s elf- re present ati on. The ju ry su bseq uentl y

co nv ic ted a ppel lan t and found thatboth enhanc ement para graph s w ere true . Th e jury returne d a pun ishm entv erdict of conf inem entfor 25 years and t he tr ial co ur

t s ubseq uentl y

ente re d a j udg ment i n c onformi ty w it h the v erdict. App ellantapp eals the trial court’s j udgm entbyconte ndin g tha t he did not ef fectively waive hi s c onst it uti onal r ig ht t o c ounse l and t hat t he tr ial co urt’ s refusal to al low both he and hi s c ounse l to be heard deni ed hi m hi s r ig ht t o assi sta nce of couns el. W e di sag re e. W aiv er of Cou nsel By hi s first is sue, appell ant conte nds that the tr ial co urt er re d i n al low ing appel lan t to be g in the c ase re present ing hi msel f. The ess ence of ap pel lan t’ s arg ument is that the tr ial co urt di d notproper ly admoni sh appel lan t abo u t the d ang ers o f sel f-represent ati on and, therefore, appel lan t di d noteffect iv ely w aiv e hi s r ig ht t o c ounse l.5

Ini ti all y , w e obser

v e that a cr imi nal defendant has a const it uti onal r ig ht t o represent hims elf at tr ial

. See F aretta v . C ali forni a, 42 2 U .S. 806, 835, 95 S. Ct . 252 5, 45 L.Ed.2d 562 ( 1975)

. How ev er , before al low ing a c ri minal defendant to representhimsel f, the t ri al cour t mus t t ake cer

tai n s teps to ensure tha t t he defendant’ s d ecis io n i s m a de 1) com pet ent ly , 2) kn owi ngly a nd intelligently, an d 3) volunt arily

. Id. Th e law doe s not require tha t the defend anthave th e skill or experience of an att orne y , howev er, the defend antmust b e m a d e a ware of the dang ers a nd di sadv antag es of sel f-represent ati on i n order to compet entl y

and int ell ig entl y

make the c hoi ce. I d. Tex as adheres to t he s ame ty pe of anal y si s i n det er mini ng w hether a c ri minal defendant has proper ly w aiv ed hi s r ig ht t o couns el. Se e T EX . C R IM . P ROC . C OD E A NN . art. 1.051( g ) (V e rn on 2005 ); C oll ier v . St ate, 959 S. W .2d 6 21, 6 26 ( Tex .C ri m.App. 1997)

. Addi ti onal ly , t he record s houl d demons trate that the defendant w as not coerced for there to hav e been a v olu ntar y w aiv er of the r ig ht to an att or ney . Col li er , 959 S.W .2d a t 626

. There is no c our

troom sc ri pt or

formul a for the t ri al jud g e to re ci te w hen a cr imi nal defendant re q uest s to re present hims elf. See B lan kens hip v . St ate, 673 S. W .2d 5 78, 5 83 (Tex .C ri m.App. 1984)

. The tr ial j udg e c annot sit i dly by w hen a cr imi nal defendant re q uest s to re present hims elf, ra ther , the tr ial jud g e must act iv ely par ti ci pate in ass ess ing the d efendant’ s w aiv er of couns el. I d. W e must rev iew the enti re record and the t otal ity of the c ircums tanc es to as cer tai n if the c ri minal defendant’ s w aiv er of his r ig ht t o c ounse l w as proper ly

made. Id. In th e case before this Cou rt, the trial judge initially inquired abo ut ap pellan t’s educa ti on. Appel la n t a d vise d that al thoug h he onl y w ent t o the 11 g ra de i n s chool , he th6

had c omplet ed hi s G ED

. Fur ther , ap p e llant adv is ed he had obt ain ed furt her tec hni cal educa ti on w hil e i n pr is on. The tri al cour t w ent t o g re at l eng ths to admoni sh appel lan t abo ut the d ang ers o f sel f-represent ati on. In fact , t he record aff irma ti vely re flect s t hat t he tr ial cour t at tempted to t alk

app ell ant o ut of the dec is ion to re presenthi msel f. U nder su ch a scena rio, w e can notsaythatapp ellantdid notef fectively w aive h is r ight to coun sel. Faretta, 422 U. S. a t 835 ; Col li er , 959 S.W .2d at 626. Acc ordin g ly , appell ant’ s first is sue is ov er ru led

. Den ial of Cou nsel Appel lan t’ s sec ond iss ue seems to contend thatthe tr ial courter re d by not all ow ing both appoi nted couns el and app ell a n t to co nductthe ini ti al v oir di re , ope nin g st atement, and c ro ss -e x aminat ion of t he firs t w it ness . To suppo rt thi s proposi ti on, appel lan t c it es the C o u rt t o t h e Te x a s C o n s t i t u t i o n a n d t h e Te x a s C o d e o f C r i mi n a l P ro c e d ur e. See T EX . C ON ST . a rt

. 1 , § 1 0 ; T EX . C R IM . P ROC . C OD E A NN . art. 1.0 5 (Verno n 20 05). How ever, appel lan t’ s a nal y si s o f the cons ti tuti onal and sta tutor y prov is ion s i g nores a l ong st andi ng hold ing by

the T exas Court of

Cri min al App eals t h a ta n ap pellan t has no rig ht to hy brid re present ati on. See La nders v . St ate, 550 S. W .2d 272, 280 ( Tex .C ri m.App. 1977)

. The rig ht to be “hea rd by him self , or coun sel, or bot h” t hata ppe llant cont end s m ean s he cou ld hav e a form of hy br id re present ati on has been cons tr ued by the Tex as Cou rtof Cr imi nal Appeal s t o mean t he r ig ht t o presenthis si de of the sto ry , but not to hy br id re present ati on. Id. at 27 8. Appel lan t has not furni shed thi s C our t w it h any

auth or ity t o a llo w th e ty pe of h yb ri d re p re s e n t a t io n d is c u s s e d in h is s e c o n d is s u e a n d we h a ve fo u n d n o n e . Ac c o rd in gl y, appel lan t’ s s econd i ss ue i s o v er ru led

.7 Con cl usi on Hav ing ov er ru led appel lan t’ s i ss ues, w e aff ir m the jud g ment of the tr ial co urt.

Mackey K. Hancock Justice Do not p ubl is h.