Court Opinion

ID: 9706602
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 01:47:18.31629+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:22:23.932499
License: Public Domain

OPINION
BILL VANCE, Justice.
Thomas Manley was convicted of and placed on community-supervision probation for the offense of deadly conduct. See Tex. Pen.Code Ann. § 22.05 (Vernon 1994). His appeal asserts that the court erred in failing to admonish him on the dangers and disadvantages of self-representation prior to the beginning of trial.1 Because we agree, we will reverse the judgment and remand this cause for a new trial.

FACTS

On October 28, 1994, Manley called David Mathis, an electrician, and asked him to hook up a spa. Mathis went to Manley’s home the next day to do the work. He returned again on October 30 to complete the job. Although Mathis originally quoted Manley $130 for the job, he told Manley on October 30 that it would cost more because the job was more involved than he thought and took extra time and supplies. Once the job was completed, Mathis told Manley that he would need a city permit before the spa could be used. According to Mathis, Manley then pulled out a “derringer type” pistol, pointed it at Mathis, and stated he was being overcharged and was not going to pay. Manley told Mathis that he had three seconds to get off his property. Mathis left, went to a nearby store, and called the police.

ADMONISHMENTS

Manley’s first issue asserts that the court failed to admonish him on the dangers and disadvantages of self-representation prior to the beginning of trial. He contends that the admonishments given to him were deficient in two respects: (1) they did not inform him of the specific dangers and disadvantages of self-representation, and (2) they were not given until after he had begun representing himself.
The Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article 1, Section 10 of the Texas Constitution provide that a defendant in a criminal trial has the right to assistance of counsel. U.S. Const, amend. VI; Tex. Const, art. I, § 10. However, this right to counsel may be waived, and the defendant may choose to represent himself at trial. Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806, 821, 95 S.Ct. 2525, 2534, 45 L.Ed.2d 562 (1975). Although the right to self-representation is absolute, a waiver of the right to counsel will not be “lightly inferred,” and the courts will indulge every reasonable presumption against the validity of such a waiver. George v. State, 9 S.W.3d 234, 236 (Tex.App. — Texarkana 1999, no pet.) (citing Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458, 464, 58 S.Ct. 1019, 1023, 82 L.Ed. 1461 (1938), and Jordan v. State, 571 S.W.2d 883, 884 (Tex.Crim.App.1978)).
How does a court decide whether a valid waiver of counsel exists? Faretta requires that (1) the appellant make a “knowing and intelligent” waiver; and (2) the appellant must be made aware of the “dangers and disadvantages of self-representation.” Id. (citing Tex.Code CRiM. Proc. Ann. art. 1.051 (Vernon Supp.1999)); Faretta, 422 U.S. at 835, 95 S.Ct. at 2541. To decide whether a defendant’s waiver is knowing and intelligent, the court must make an inquiry, evidenced by the record, which shows that the defendant has suffi-*174dent intelligence to demonstrate a capacity to waive his right to counsel and the ability to appreciate the practical disadvantage he will confront in representing himself. George, 9 S.W.3d at 237 (citing Archie v. State, 799 S.W.2d 340, 344 (Tex. App. — Houston [14th Dist.] 1990), aff'd, 816 S.W.2d 424 (Tex.Crim.App.1991)). The court must determine not only that the defendant wishes to waive his right to counsel, but that he understands the consequences of such waiver. Id.
Although it is not mandatory that the warnings be given in writing, we have previously held that the record must show that the defendant understands the consequences of his waiver. Goffney v. State, 812 S.W.2d 351, 352 (Tex.App. — Waco 1991), aff'd, 843 S.W.2d 583 (Tex.Crim.App.1992). It is not enough that the record show conclusions by the trial court that the defendant is aware of the dangers and disadvantages of self-representation.
In Gojfney, the only references to the defendant’s self-representation appeared in the docket sheet, the judgment, and the sentence. The docket sheet stated that the defendant appeared pro se, waived counsel and waived the record. Goffney v. State, 843 S.W.2d 583, 584 (Tex.Crim.App.1992). The judgment and sentence stated that the defendant “knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily waived his right to counsel.” Id. The Court of Criminal Appeals held that this language was insufficient and affirmed our reversal of the case.
Here, the record is not completely silent, but the references to Manley’s decision to proceed without counsel are few. The following exchange occurred between the court and Manley prior to the beginning of the voir dire examination of the jury panel:
The Court: Mr. Manley, it’s my understanding that you wish to waive your rights to have an attorney represent you, and you are representing yourself; is that correct, sir.
Manley: That’s correct.
The Court: And under the law we call that pro se.
Manley: Yes.
The Court: You are representing yourself pro se?
Manley: Yes, sir.
The Court: And you are ready to go forward at this time?
Manley: Yes, sir.
The Court: The State has the burden of proof so it gets to go first. Ms. Hellstern, whenever you are ready you may begin your jury selection.
After voir dire, but prior to opening statements, the Court made the following admonishments:
The Court: Yesterday morning we selected the jury in this case, and at that time you requested your right to be able to represent yourself without an attorney, and I respected your wishes. I also advised you and warned you of any dangers in representing yourself. We are about ready to start the jury trial now, and you will be given [sic] an opening statement and proceed into testimony. And once again, I want to advise you that you do have a right to get an attorney and have that attorney represent you here in court at any criminal proceedings including this trial. Do you understand that?
Manley: I do understand that.
The Court: Do you understand that if you are poor or indigent or unable to employ an attorney, the law requires that I appoint you an attorney, and I will do so if you are indigent. You understand that?
Manley: Yes, I do.
The Court: And you are not claiming to be indigent at this time.
Manley: No, Your Honor.
The Court: You understand that there are certain dangers in trying to undertake representing yourself here during this jury trial today.
Manley: Yes, I do.
*175The Court: I will need to hold you to the same procedural, evidentiary, and legal standing that I will hold an attorney.
Manley: Yes.
The Court: Now once, again, having advised you and readvised you of the dangers of self-representation, at this time do you still wish to represent yourself pro se in this case?
Manley: Yes, I do.
The trial then proceeded.2
The Court of Criminal Appeals has stated that sufficient admonishment must be reflected on the record prior to any act of self-representation. Id. It is clear that the record does not reflect sufficient admonishments prior to Manley’s appearance pro-se. He questioned the jury during voir dire and attempted to make use of his peremptory strikes. Thus, regardless of whether the admonishments given after the jury had been selected were sufficient, they were too late. The court erred in failing to properly admonish Manley prior to any act of self-representation. See id.
Now we must consider the necessity of a harm analysis. We note that no harm analysis was done in Goffney; however, because it was decided prior to the adoption of the new appellate rules in 1997, we cannot rely on it. George was decided recently, yet the Texarkana Court reversed and remanded without a harm analysis. We can only assume that this is because they consider the error to be “structural.” See George, 9 S.W.3d at 237.
No error, other than federal constitutional errors labeled as structural by the United States Supreme Court, i.e., those involving “fundamental constitutional systemic requirements,” is categorically immune to harmless error analysis. Salinas v. State, 980 S.W.2d 219, 219 (Tex.Crim. App.1998); Foster v. State, 8 S.W.3d 445, 446 (Tex.App. — Waco 1999, no pet.) (citing Ibarra v. State, 11 S.W.3d 189, 197 (Tex.Crim.App.1999)). The Supreme Court has defined such requirements in part as those which, when denied, “defy analysis by ‘harmless error’ standards.” Foster, 8 S.W.3d at 446 (citing Arizona v. Fulminante, 499 U.S. 279, 309-10, 111 S.Ct. 1246, 1265, 113 L.Ed.2d 302 (1991)). A complete denial of counsel falls within this category. Id.
Allowing a defendant to proceed pro se without properly determining whether he has knowingly and intelligently waived his right to counsel is as critical as forcing a defendant to proceed to trial without the presence of counsel. We believe that the failure to properly admonish a defendant on the dangers and disadvantages of self-representation is error involving “fundamental constitutional systemic requirements” and is categorically immune to a harmless error analysis. See Faretta, 422 U.S. at 816-23, 95 S.Ct. at 2532-35; Salinas, 980 S.W.2d at 219. Thus, we forego any attempt to apply Rule of Appellate Procedure 44.2 to this error. Tex. R.App. P. 44.2.
We reverse the judgment and remand the cause for a new trial.
Dissenting opinion by Justice GRAY.

. He also complains that the evidence is factually insufficient to support the verdict, an issue we do not reach.

. No other admonishments appear in the record.