Melissa Jean Pool v. State ( 2015 )

ACCEPTED
06-15-00131-CR
SIXTH COURT OF APPEALS
TEXARKANA, TEXAS
12/15/2015 12:20:33 PM
DEBBIE AUTREY
CLERK
No. 06-15-00131-CR
In the FILED IN
6th COURT OF APPEALS
Court of Appeals TEXARKANA, TEXAS
12/15/2015 12:20:33 PM
Of the Sixth Appellate District DEBBIE AUTREY
Clerk
Of the State of Texas
__________________________
Melissa Jean Pool
v.
The State of Texas
__________________________
Appeal from Cause No. 2015-0550-CR2
In the County Court at Law No. 2
Of McLennan County, Texas
__________________________
Brief for Appellant
__________________________
Christopher L. King
100 N. 6th St., Suite 902
Waco, TX 76701
SBN: 24088864
Telephone: 254-717-8600
Email: callahankinglaw.com
Attorney for Appellant
IDENTITY OF PARTIES AND COUNSEL
Appellant
Melissa Jean Pool
By: Christopher L. King
Callahan & King, P.L.L.C.
100 N. 6th St., Suite 902
Waco, TX 76701
Telephone: 254-717-8600
SBN: 24088864
Email: callahankinglaw@gmail.com
Appellee
The State of Texas
By: Abel Reyna
Criminal District Attorney, McLennan County
219 N. 6th St., Suite 200
Waco, TX 76701
Telephone: 254-757-5084
SBN: 24000087
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Identity of Parties and Counsel i
Table of Contents ii
Index of Authorities iii
Preliminary Statement 1
Point of Error No. 1 2
Statement of Facts 2
Summary of Argument 2
Argument 2
Conclusion 6
Prayer for Relief 6
ii
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
CASE LAW Page
Blankenship v. State, 673 S.W.2d 578 (Tex. Crim. App. 1984) 2, 3
Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (1975) 3
Fernandez v. State, 283 S.W.3d 25 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2009, no 3, 4
pet).
Goffney v. State, 843 S.W.2d 583 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992) 3, 6
Grant v. State, 255 S.W.3d 642 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 2007, no pet) 4
Mart. v. State, 630 S.W.2d 952 (Tex. Crim. App. 1982) 3
CONSTITUTIONS
Tex. Const. art. I, § 10. 2
STATUTES
Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. § 1.051. 2
iii
TO THE HONORABLE JUSTICES OF THE COURT OF APPEALS:
Comes now Melissa Jean Pool, hereinafter referred to as appellant, and
submits this brief pursuant to the provisions of the Texas Rules of Appellate
Procedure in support of his/her request for a new trial in appellate Cause No. 06-
15-00131-CR.
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
On June 30, 2015, in the County Court at Law No. 2of McLennan County,
the Honorable Thomas Bradley Cates presiding, the appellant was convicted by a
jury of the offense of interference with public duties after a plea of not guilty.
The punishment was assessed by the court at thirty days incarceration in the
county jail. The prosecuting attorney was Mr. Aubrey Robertson and appellant
appeared pro se. The trial court appointed Mr. Christopher L. King as stand-by
counsel.
1
Point of Error No. 1: The trial court erred by inadequately admonishing
Defendant regarding self-representation on the record, and thus failed to
ensure that Defendant’s waiver of counsel was competently, knowingly, and
voluntarily made
I. Statement of Facts
Defendant was present for several pre-trial hearings and throughout trial,
but the reporter’s record from these proceedings does not contain any significant
admonishment related to the dangers of self-representation or inquiry into her
capacity to represent herself. (R.R., Vol. II, p. 1; R.R. Supp., Vol. I, p. 1)
II. Summary of argument
The record does not reflect that the trial court judge adequately
admonished Defendant on the dangers of self-representation, and thus
Defendant’s waiver of counsel was not made knowingly and voluntarily. This
violates Defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to counsel. An objection to this
error need not be raised at trial, and prejudice is presumed.
III. Argument
The Sixth Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment to the United States
Constitution guarantee the right to counsel to a person facing potential
imprisonment in a criminal case. Blankenship v. State, 673 S.W.2d 578, 582
(Tex. Crim. App. 1984). The Texas state constitution guarantees the right to
counsel. Tex. Const. art. I, § 10. The Texas Legislature has also provided a
statutory right to counsel. Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. § 1.051.
2
Criminal defendants also have a constitutional right to represent
themselves without the assistance of counsel. Blankenship, 673 S.W.2d at 582.
To invoke his right to self-representation a defendant “should be made aware of
the dangers and disadvantages of self-representation.” Faretta v. California, 422
U.S. 806, 835 (1975). The record must establish that “he knows what he is
doing, and his choice is made with his eyes open.” Id. The trial court is
responsible for making sure that the record fully shows that the defendant’s
waiver of counsel is made with a clear understanding of the consequences of
self-representation. Martin v. State, 630 S.W.2d 952, 954 n.4 (Tex. Crim. App.
1982).
While there is not a specific requirement that the trial court inquire into a
defendant’s age, education, background, or mental health history, “the record
must contain proper admonishments concerning pro se representation and any
necessary inquiries of the defendant so that the trial court may make an
assessment of his knowing exercise of the right to defend himself.” Goffney v.
State, 843 S.W.2d 583, 585 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992) (emphasis in original).
Presuming waiver from a silent record is impermissible. Id. Indeed, “courts
indulge every reasonable presumption against the validity of a waiver of
counsel.” Fernandez v. State, 283 S.W.3d 25, 28 (Tex. App.—San Antonio
2009, no pet). The admonishments should be given even if standby counsel is
3
appointed. Grant v. State, 255 S.W.3d 642, 647 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 2007, no
pet).
Additionally, when a trial court fails to sufficiently admonish a defendant
on the dangers of self-representation on the record, the defendant’s waiver of
counsel is invalid. Fernandez, 283 S.W.3d at 31. An invalid waiver results in a
denial of the constitutional right to counsel. Id. Because this is a structural
defect, prejudice is presumed, and this is reversible error not subject to a harm
analysis. Id.
The record in this matter does not contain adequate admonishments
regarding the dangers of self-representation. The clerk’s record contains a
written waiver of counsel form signed by the defendant on April 15, 2015. (C.R.,
Vol. I, p. 12) That document indicates that a hearing was held, but the reporter’s
record does not contain any information from that hearing. The reporter’s record
from the pre-trial hearing conducted on June 10, 2015 does not contain
admonishments regarding the dangers of self-representation as required by
Faretta. (R.R. Supp., Vol. I, p. 1)
Similarly, the final pre-trial hearing did not contain adequate
admonishments either. The reporter’s record from the pre-trial hearing conducted
on June 25, 2015 indicates that the Assistant District Attorney (ADA)
prosecuting the case did not believe that the defendant was “competent” to
4
represent herself at trial. (R.R., Vol. II, p. 11) The ADA specifically enumerated
that he did not think the defendant even understood what she was charged with.
(R.R., Vol. II, p. 11) During that hearing the defendant indicated that she wanted
to attach a civil suit to the case. (R.R., Vol. II, p. 9) The Defendant indicated a
lack of understanding of the case or the consequences of self-representation, and
even the State’s representative agreed. In response to this, the judge decided to
appoint standby counsel and stated that it “is a dangerous practice” for a
defendant to represent himself. (R.R., Vol. II, p. 13) The judge mentioned that
loss of liberty could result from a conviction, (R.R., Vol. II, p. 14), but that is as
close as he came to admonishing the defendant about the consequences of self-
representation. The judge made no inquiry during this hearing into specific
attributes of the defendant such as her education, background, or mental health
history.
At no point in the records before the Court was the defendant made aware
of the profound consequences of self-representation so that she could enter her
trial with her “eyes open” as required by the Supreme Court in Faretta. In the
record before this court, the trial court did not make any inquiry into the
defendant’s training, education, or experience with the legal system. In fact, the
defendant’s own conduct in trying to link a civil matter to this criminal case
demonstrated her lack of understanding.
5
IV. Conclusion
The court erred by not giving clear admonishments regarding the dangers
of self-representation and ensuring that the defendant’s waiver of counsel was
made knowingly and voluntarily. This error was not cured by the last-minute
appointment of standby counsel. As the Court of Criminal Appeals stated in
Goffney, “The record must show, or there must be an allegation and evidence
which must show, that an accused was offered counsel but intelligently and
understandingly rejected the offer. Anything less is not a waiver.” Goffney, 843
S.W.2d at 585.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
For the reasons herein alleged, the Appellant was denied a fair trial in this
case, and the judgment and sentence should be set aside and Appellant granted a
new trial.
Respectfully submitted,
___/s/ Christopher L King____________________
Christopher L King
Attorney for Appellant
State Bar No. 24088864
One Liberty Place
100 N. 6th Street, Suite 902
Waco, Texas 76701
Phone (254) 717-8600
Fax (254) 313-3200
Email: callahankinglaw@gmail.com
6
I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing
document has been sent via Electronic Mail to Abel Reyna, Criminal District
Attorney for McLennan County, on December 15, 2015.
__________/s/ Christopher L King_______________
Christopher L King
7