Court Opinion

ID: 9680997
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 07:42:13.066656+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:17:31.786348
License: Public Domain

ANDELL, Justice,
dissenting.
I dissent to the majority’s disposition of point of error one concerning the lack of admonishments of the dangers and disadvantages of self-representation to appellant, who represented himself with standby counsel who did not participate in the trial.
The majority here is persuaded by the reasoning of our sister court in Robertson v. State. See 934 S.W.2d 861 (Tex.App. —Houston [14th Dist.] 1996, no pet.). That reasoning is that standby counsel is similar to hybrid representation, a type of representation for which the Court of Criminal Appeals has found it unnecessary for a trial court to admonish a defendant about the dangers and disadvantages of self-representation. Id at 864-66. While, as an intermediate court, we are generally bound by precedent from the Court of Criminal Appeals, we have no duty to extend precedent to new situations. Not only do I dissent from such an extension by the majority, I urge the Court of Criminal Appeals to reexamine its decision in Maddox v. State. See 613 S.W.2d 276, 286 (Tex.Crim.App.1980) (holding it unnecessary to admonish a defendant engaging in hybrid representation of the dangers and disadvantages of self-representation). Whether a defendant represents himself with counsel standing by, or represents himself with counsel actually assisting for certain purposes, in both situations a defendant is making his own strategic and tactical decisions. In both situations a defendant should be warned of the dangers and disadvantages of not allowing an attorney to make those decisions, so that his waiver of his right to representation by counsel is made knowingly and intelligently.
The court in Robertson acknowledged the distinction between representation by and assistance of counsel. Id. at 864. It also recognized a tension between the United States Supreme Court’s requirement of admonishments whenever representation by counsel is waived and the Court of Criminal Appeals which requires admonishments only when assistance of counsel is waived. Id. at 865. I urge the Court of Criminal Appeals to reconcile this conflict by requiring admonishments whenever a defendant is not being represented by counsel, regardless of the availability of the assistance of counsel.
Accordingly, I respectfully dissent.
SCHNEIDER, C.J., and TAFT, J., also participating.