Funderburg v. State
Decision Date | 08 October 1986 |
Docket Number | No. 268-83,268-83 |
Citation | 717 S.W.2d 637 |
Parties | Michael James FUNDERBURG, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee. |
Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
G. Lee Haney, Brownwood, for appellant.
Stephen Ellis, Dist. Atty., Fred Franklin, Asst. Dist. Atty., Brownwood, Robert Huttash, State's Atty., Austin, for the State.
Before the court en banc.
OPINION ON APPELLANT'S PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW
Appellant was convicted of the offense of injury to a child. V.T.C.A. Penal Code, § 22.04 (Supp.1986). Punishment was enhanced by two prior convictions and assessed at life imprisonment. V.T.C.A. Penal Code, § 12.42 (1974). In an unpublished opinion, the Eleventh Court of Appeals affirmed. Funderburg v. State, No. 11-82-228-CR (Tex.App.--Eastland, delivered March 10, 1983). We granted appellant's pro se petition for discretionary review to determine whether appellant was denied the right to represent himself at his trial. 1 See Art. 44.33, R. 302(c)(3), V.A.C.C.P. (Supp.1986). We will affirm.
Appellant was indicted on January 5, 1982. On January 6, 1982, appellant appeared for arraignment and signed a sworn application for the appointment of an attorney. The trial court appointed an attorney to represent appellant and proceeded with arraignment. After arraignment, the following colloquy occurred between appellant and the trial court:
(Supp.R. I-3-7.) 2 At a pretrial hearing on January 26, 1980, and during the subsequent trial on February 22, 1980, appellant was represented by appointed counsel.
In a supplement to the record, the State offered proof, via a bill of exception, that appellant waived his right to self-representation. 3 The bill of exception was supported by affidavits from the district attorney, an assistant district attorney, appellant's appointed attorney and the court reporter. The bill states that "at one of the numerous pre-trial hearings scheduled in [State v. Funderburg, No. 9694], either at the conclusion of the hearing on January 6, 1982 or prior to the hearing on January 26, 1982," appellant told the trial court that, after "consultation" with his court-appointed attorney, he preferred to be represented by his court-appointed attorney "rather than to continue to insist on self-representation...." (Supp.R. IA-1-5).
Appellant has filed a supplemental record with this Court that contains a bill of exception. 4 The bill states:
BE IT REMEMBERED that prior to the commencement of a pre-trial hearing on January 26, 1982, the Court informed the Defendant that his appointed counsel had informed the Court that after talking with the Defendant he had been asked to proceed with the preparation of the defense in cause number 9694. The Court asked the Defendant if he had told the attorney this and he replied that he had. The extent of the Court's inquiry was as such to determine that the Defendant relinquished his right to self-representation, as evidenced by his subsequent pre-trial hearing on January 6, 1982.
The Court of Appeals, relying upon appellant's supplemental statement of facts, found that appellant had requested the right to self-representation. Funderburg, supra, at 1. Relying upon the State's bill of exception, the Court of Appeals found that appellant waived his right to self-representation and agreed to be represented by his court-appointed attorney. Id., at 1-2. Furthermore, the Court of Appeals held that the record did not show a knowing or intelligent waiver of the right to counsel by appellant and that no objection was made by appellant "to the fact that the trial court did not permit appellant the right to self-representation." Id. The Court of Appeals concluded by holding that "there is no error in appointing a lawyer for appellant, but if there be error, none is preserved for this court to consider." Id.
Appellant concedes that he informed the trial court "that he wanted the appointed attorney to proceed with the case." (Brief for Appellant, p. 8). However, appellant argues that the trial court failed to determine whether appellant was voluntarily relinquishing his right to self-representation.
Appellant argues that his waiver of his right to self-representation was involuntary because the trial court left him with no alternative at the hearing on January 6, 1982. In effect, he contends that he decided "not to continue persisting on an issue the trial court had already denied...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Hathorn v. State
...Nevertheless, an accused's right to proceed pro se does not attach until he clearly and unequivocally asserts it. Funderburg v. State, 717 S.W.2d 637, 642 (Tex.Crim.App.1986); Scarbrough v. State, 777 S.W.2d, at It is apparent to us that appellant did indeed clearly and unequivocally assert......
-
Johnson v. State
...the dust raised resulting on occasion in the sub silentio return to the former method of construction [see, e.g., Funderburg v. State, 717 S.W.2d 637, 641-642 (Tex.Cr.App.1986) ]. With the use of Martin the majority of this Court's engineers has thus provided a bumpy, dusty road with annoyi......
-
Metcalf v. State, 90-KA-1227
...523 A.2d 597 (1987); Ford v. State, 515 So.2d 34 (Ala.Cr.App.1986); State v. Dupre, 500 So.2d 873 (Ct.App.La.1986); Funderburg v. State, 717 S.W.2d 637 (Tex.Cr.App.1986); Moore v. State, 142 Ga.App. 145, 235 S.E.2d 577 (1977); State v. Randall, 530 S.W.2d 407 (Mo.Ct.App.1975).3 In his brief......
-
Williams v. State
...of Appeal of California, Fourth Appellate District, 528 U.S. 152, 163, 120 S.Ct. 684, 145 L.Ed.2d 597 (2000). 16. Funderburg v. State, 717 S.W.2d 637, 642 (Tex.Crim.App. 1986) (citing Faretta, 422 U.S. at 835, 95 S.Ct. 2525; Brown v. Wainwright, 665 F.2d 607, 610 (5th Cir.1982)). 17. Id. at......
-
Right to Counsel and Effective Assistance of Counsel
...the defendant’s ability to knowingly and intelligently waive his right to counsel, rather than his legal experience. Funderburg v. State, 717 S.W.2d 637 (Tex. Crim. App. 1986). The record must reflect that the trial court thoroughly admonished the defendant. Collier, supra . In a case where......
-
Right to Counsel and Effective Assistance of Counsel
...the defendant’s ability to knowingly and intelligently waive his right to counsel, rather than his legal experience. Funderburg v. State, 717 S.W.2d 637 (Tex. Crim. App. 1986). The record must reflect that the trial court thoroughly admonished the defendant. Collier, supra . In a case where......
-
Table of Cases
...1992, pet. ref’d ), §15:91.5 Fuller v. State, 858 S.W.2d 528 (Tex.App.—Eastland 1993, pet. ref’d ), §5:58 Funderburg v. State, 717 S.W.2d 637 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992), §§4:73, 4:74.3 Furrh v. State, 582 S.W.2d 824 (Tex. Crim. App. 1979), §20:94.8.2 G Gaal v. State, 332 S.W.3d 448 (Tex. Crim. ......
-
Right to Counsel and Effective Assistance of Counsel
...the defendant’s ability to knowingly and intelligently waive his right to counsel, rather than his legal experience. Funderburg v. State, 717 S.W.2d 637 (Tex. Crim. App. 1986). The record must reflect that the trial court thoroughly admonished the defendant. Collier, supra . In a case where......