Court Opinion

ID: 9759549
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 00:19:41.70719+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:29:02.786651
License: Public Domain

MILLER, Judge,
dissenting.
As the author of this Court’s opinion in Blankenship v. State, 673 S.W.2d 578 (Tex.*586Crim.App.1984), I feel compelled to comment. The majority holds that “[bjecause the record does not contain the admonishments of the dangers and disadvantages of self-representation as required by Faretta [v. California, 422 U.S. 806, 95 S.Ct. 2525, 45 L.Ed.2d 562 (1975) ],” the defendant is entitled to a new trial. At p. 585. I adhere to the pronouncements in Blankenship, and even the majority opinion, that a defendant must be admonished as to the dangers and disadvantages of self-representation in order to make an intelligent waiver in that regard. I dissent in this cause because I believe the record adequately reflects such admonishments were given.
The judgment in this case reflects that appellant knowingly and intelligently waived his right to counsel ...” That conclusion by the trial judge, in my opinion, implicitly incorporates the notion that the defendant was properly admonished before waiving his right to an attorney. In other words, the waiver was intelligently made because the defendant was warned of the risks of self-representation and consciously weighed them.
The concerns expressed by the majority opinion would be satisfied if somewhere in the record, be it the docket sheet, the judgment, etc., it was expressly stated (rather than implicitly reflected) that the admonishments were given. The majority appears to want something more than a recitation of an “intelligent” waiver in the judgment of the trial court. I find the recitations in the judgment adequately reflect appellant was properly admonished and his Sixth Amendment right protected.
I reiterate, however, that trial judges should follow the rules of Blankenship, as apparently did the trial judge in this cause. It becomes only a question of whether the wording in the judgment is sufficient to specifically reflect proper admonishments were given under the majority opinion authored today. In my mind, the only purpose of reciting in the judgment that the waiver was “intelligently and knowingly” made is to reflect that the admonishments were given.
We these comments, I respectfully dissent.
WHITE, J., joins this opinion.