Jose DeJesus Guel-Rivas v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 27th District Court of Bell County

SUPREME COURT CASES

Laws-info.com » Cases » Texas » 3rd District Court of Appeals » 2007 » Jose DeJesus Guel-Rivas v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 27th District Court of Bell County

State: Texas

Court: Criminal Court of Appeals

Docket No: 03-06-00762-CR

Case Date: 11/30/2007

Plaintiff: JANET LORRAINE WILLIAMS

Defendant: THE STATE OF TEXAS (Original)

Preview:JANET LORRAINE WILLIAMS v. THE STATE OF TEXAS (Original)
Texas Judiciary Online - HTML Opinion Close This Window
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TEXAS
NO. PD-1245-06 JANET LORRAINE WILLIAMS, Appellant
v.
THE STATE OF TEXAS
ON STATE'S PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW FROM THE FOURTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS BRAZORIA COUNTY Keasler, J., delivered the opinion of the Court in which Keller, P.J., and Meyers, Price, Johnson, Hervey, Holcomb,
and Cochran, JJ., joined. Womack, J., not participating.
O P I N I O N The Court of Appeals held that Janet Lorraine Williams's waiver of her right to counsel was invalid because the trial judge failed to inquire into her indigent status and admonish her about the right to appointed counsel. (1) The court held that the error was structural constitutional error that is categorically immune to a harm analysis. (2) We granted review to determine whether the court's refusal to apply a harm analysis was incorrect. We hold that the court was correct and affirm its judgment.Background
Williams was charged with the Class A misdemeanor offense of terroristic threat (3) for threatening to assault a teacher's assistant at her son's elementary school. Williams pled not guilty, and when she appeared for trial, she did not have counsel. The trial judge took note of this and questioned Williams. Williams told the judge that she wanted to represent herself. The trial judge then engaged in a brief colloquy with Williams about her desire to proceed pro se. During this discussion, the trial judge informed Williams of the charge, the applicable range of punishment, and warned her that she would be dealing with an "experienced prosecutor." Although the judge told Williams that she had the "right" to an attorney, the judge neither informed Williams that she would be entitled to an attorney if she could not afford one nor inquired into Williams's indigent status even though Williams stated that she did not hire an attorney because she could not afford one. Despite the inadequate admonishments, the judge allowed Williams to represent herself. A jury found Williams guilty and assessed her punishment at thirty days' confinement in the county jail and a $1.00 fine. However, the jury suspended the sentence and placed Williams on community supervision for six months.
Williams filed a notice of appeal and a sworn affidavit of indigency. After a short indigency hearing, the trial judge determined that Williams was indigent and appointed her counsel for appeal.
On appeal before the Fourteenth Court of Appeals, Williams claimed, among other things, that her decision to waive counsel was not made knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily because the trial judge failed to adequately address her indigent status and her right to appointed counsel as required by Faretta v. California. (4) The court of appeals determined that Williams's waiver of her right to counsel was invalid. (5) In doing so, the court stated: "Without knowing whether she was entitled to appointed trial counsel, appellant's waiver of her right to counsel was not made knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily as required by the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments." (6) Turning to the question of whether the error was harmless, the court held that the error was fundamental and not subject to a harmless error analysis under Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 44.2. (7) As a result, the court reversed the trial court's judgment and remanded the case for a new trial. (8)
Focusing only on the court of appeals's refusal to apply a harm analysis, the State petitioned for review, presenting two grounds for our consideration:
(1)
whether any error in the trial court's admonishments to the defendant regarding self-representation was a non

Download 16379.pdf