Court Opinion

ID: 9892032
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-20 07:11:20.01374+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:16:49.715013
License: Public Domain

In The

                          Court of Appeals

               Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

                         __________________

                         NO. 09-22-00338-CR
                         __________________

            JAMES BRADLEY ALBRIGHT, Appellant

                                  V.

                THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
__________________________________________________________________

            On Appeal from the 252nd District Court
                    Jefferson County, Texas
                    Trial Cause No. 19-33082
__________________________________________________________________

                    MEMORANDUM OPINION

     In April 2020, James Bradley Albright pleaded no contest to an

indictment charging him with possession of a controlled substance

(methamphetamine). The trial court found him guilty, deferred

adjudicating his guilt, and signed an order placing Albright on deferred

adjudication, community supervision for five years. 1

     1See Tex. Health & Safety Code Ann. § 481.115(d).

                                   1
     In April 2022, the State filed a motion in which it asked the trial

court to conduct a hearing and determine whether Albright’s probation

should be revoked. The trial court conducted the probation revocation

hearing on September 12, 2022. But four months earlier, the trial court’s

docket sheet reflects the trial court released Albright’s attorney of record

at a “Probation Revocation Announcement.” No other attorney was

appointed to represent Albright in the September 12 hearing. Albright

also told the trial court that he was not ready to proceed. Nothing in the

appellate record shows that the trial court warned Albright about the

danger of representing himself. At the conclusion of the revocation

hearing, the trial court found Albright had violated the terms of the trial

court’s community-supervision order, pronounced him guilty, and

assessed a five-year sentence.

     “It is well established that every criminal defendant has a

constitutional right to the assistance of counsel and the constitutional

right to self-representation.” 2 The right to counsel is regarded as

     2Osorio-Lopez v. State, 663 S.W.3d 750, 756 (Tex. Crim. App. 2022)

(citing U.S. CONST. amend. VI, Tex. Const. art. I § 10, and Faretta v.
California, 422 U.S. 806, 835 (1975)).
                                   2
fundamental, so an indigent defendant is entitled to appointed counsel

unless the defendant competently, intelligently, and voluntarily waives

the right to counsel.” 3 The right to self-representation is also regarded as

fundamental, but representation by counsel is the standard—not the

exception—and there is a strong presumption against the waiver of the

right to counsel. 4

      A criminal defendant’s right to counsel is effective until he clearly

and unequivocally asserts his right to self-representation. 5 A defendant

must assert the right to self-representation in a timely manner; he must

assert the right voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently; and his

assertion must be unconditional and not a calculated attempt to disrupt,

subvert, obstruct, or delay the orderly procedure of the courts or to

interfere with the fair administration of justice. 6 Once the defendant

clearly, unequivocally, and unconditionally asserts his right to self-

representation, the trial court must inform the defendant about the

      3Williams v. State, 252 S.W.3d 353, 355-56 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008).
      4Martinez v. Ct. of App. of Cal., 528 U.S. 152, 161 (2000); Lathem v.

State, 514 S.W.3d 796, 802 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2017, no pet.).
     5Osorio-Lopez, 663 S.W.3d at 756.
     6Id.; Funderburg v. State, 717 S.W.2d 637, 641-42 (Tex. Crim. App.

1986); Blankenship v. State, 673 S.W.2d 578, 585 (Tex. Crim. App. 1984).
                                   3
“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.” 7

      “[A] trial court need follow no formulaic questioning or particular

script to assure itself that an accused who has asserted his right to self-

representation does so with eyes open.” 8 But the record must

demonstrate the trial court informed the defendant “that there are

technical rules of evidence and procedure, and he will not be granted any

special consideration solely because he asserted his pro se rights.” 9 If the

record doesn’t demonstrate that the defendant clearly and unequivocally

waived his right to counsel—or that the trial court thoroughly

admonished the defendant on the dangers and disadvantages of self-

representation—it is a structural defect requiring automatic reversal. 10

      In this case, no one disputes that the record shows Albright was not

properly admonished about the dangers and disadvantages of self-

      7Williams, 252 S.W.3d at 356 (cleaned up).
      8Osorio-Lopez, 663 S.W.3d at 757 (cleaned up).
      9Id. (cleaned up).
      10Williams, 252 S.W.3d at 357-58.

                                     4
representation. We reverse the trial court’s judgment and remand the

case to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with the opinion.

     REVERSED AND REMANDED.

                                                    HOLLIS HORTON
                                                       Justice

Submitted on October 12, 2023
Opinion Delivered October 18, 2023
Do Not Publish

Before Horton, Johnson and Wright, JJ.

                                     5