Court Opinion

ID: 9768363
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 05:58:45.507393+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:30:39.815485
License: Public Domain

KEITH, Justice,
dissenting.
I confine my dissent to the ruling upon the third ground of error, that relating to the self-representation by the appellant. As to this facet of the cause, I respectfully dissent.
The lengthy quotation from the record as to the events leading up to the self-representation is all that is to be found therein; and, it is obvious that there is a large, and glaring, omission.* Such defect was expressed in Maddox v. State, 613 S.W.2d 275, 285 (Tex.Cr.App.1980):
“The record does not establish that the appellant was made so aware of the dangers and disadvantages of self-representation that he made a knowing and informed choice.”
Absent a record showing of an explanation of the consequences of his foray into self-representation, followed by a showing that “ ‘the accused voluntarily, knowingly and intelligently waive[d] his right to counsel,’ ” the trial court erred. See Jordan v. State, 571 S.W.2d 883, 884 (Tex.Cr.App.1978), quoted in Maddox v. State, supra (613 S.W.2d at 285).
The majority follows the argument of State’s counsel that reversible error is not shown because “[t]he counsel [for appellant] remained, gave advice, and argued the case to the jury.” This is not a distinction from Maddox, as asserted. There, the attorneys continued in the case and “did give the appellant advice when he requested it.” (613 S.W,2d at 279)
From my review of the record, I am unable to find compliance with the rule announced in Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806, 835, 95 S.Ct. 2525, 2541, 45 L.Ed.2d 562 *828(1975), as stated in Maddox, supra (613 S.W.2d at 285), that appellant was “made aware of the dangers and disadvantages of self-representation, so that the record will establish that ‘he knows what he is doing and his choice is made with eyes open.’ ” Faretta, supra (422 U.S. at 837, 95 S.Ct. at 2542, 45 L.Ed.2d at 582).
The trial court did not follow the teachings of Maddox and the authorities therein cited. Because of the lack of a record showing of a knowing and intelligent waiver of his rights, if such was done in fact, I respectually dissent from an affirmation of the judgment which condemns appellant to confinement for six decades.

 “Bench” conferences, such as mentioned in this case, which are “inaudible to the jury and court reporter” may be helpful at the trial level; they are of no value to an appellate court. Indeed, there is no substitute for a complete and unabridged record on appeal.