Court Opinion

ID: 9681027
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 07:42:47.625934+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:17:31.901517
License: Public Domain

W. C. DAVIS, Judge,
concurring on State’s motion for rehearing.
I concur with the majority opinion adopting a more accurate interpretation of the requirements of Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806, 95 S.Ct. 2525, 45 L.Ed.2d 562 (1975). However, I think it important to caution that, although the particular inquiry suggested in the opinion on original submission 1 is no longer essential in every case, the record must affirmatively reflect that the accused made a knowing and intelligent waiver of his Sixth Amendment right to counsel,2 having been informed of the dangers and disadvantages of self-representation. See Faretta v. California, supra, at 835, 95 S.Ct. at 2541.
Finally, this Court has often reiterated the United States Supreme Court’s declaration that a waiver of the right to counsel will not be “lightly inferred” nor presumed from a silent record and that courts will indulge every reasonable presumption against such a waiver. Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458, 58 S.Ct. 1019, 82 L.Ed. 1461 (1938), accord; Geeslin v. State, 600 S.W.2d 309 (Tex.Cr.App.1980); Jordan v. State, 571 S.W.2d 883 (Tex.Cr.App.1978); Trevino v. State, 555 S.W.2d 750 (Tex.Cr.App.1977).
ONION, P. J., joins.

. The opinion on original submission stated the trial court must inquire into the defendant’s background, age, education and experience. See Geeslin v. State, 600 S.W.2d 309 (Tex.Cr.App.1980); Renfro v. State, 586 S.W.2d 496 (Tex.Cr.App.1979).

. In Faretta, the Court stated, “[t]he record affirmatively shows that Faretta was literate, competent, and understanding, and that he was voluntarily exercising his informed free will.” Faretta v. California, supra, at 835, 95 S.Ct. at 2541.