Christopher Anthony Barski v. State
11-13-00217-CR
| Tex. App. | Aug 21, 2015Background
- Christopher Barski, charged with aggravated sexual assault of an 8-year-old niece, was convicted by a jury and sentenced to 24 years' confinement.
- Barski moved pro se to represent himself; the trial court held a Faretta hearing, admonished him, and appointed his counsel as standby counsel after Barski insisted on self-representation and signed a written waiver.
- Before Barski chose self-representation, the State had an open-file policy with appointed counsel; that access was revoked when counsel became standby counsel.
- During trial Barski complained of lack of sleep and limited access to some notes (kept at another jail), and he asked to delay proceedings on the second day; the court proceeded with a suppression hearing because the State’s witness was present.
- Barski raised three appellate issues: (1) his waiver of counsel was not knowing and intelligent; (2) the court erred by preventing standby counsel from sharing open-file materials without an in camera review; and (3) the court denied due process by forcing him to proceed while fatigued and without some notes.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Barski) | Defendant's Argument (State / Trial Court) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Validity of Faretta waiver | Waiver was not competent, knowing, intelligent, or voluntary | Trial court conducted extensive admonishments and inquiries; Barski persisted and signed waiver | Waiver valid; no error in allowing self-representation |
| 2. Access to open-file materials from standby counsel | Court should have allowed standby counsel to share open-file materials or at least performed in camera review | Open-file access was revoked when counsel became standby; Barski did not request in camera review or follow discovery procedures; record shows materials were ultimately made available | Not preserved for review and no reversible error; Barski received materials for trial |
| 3. Proceeding while fatigued / denial of continuance | Forcing trial to proceed and denying continuance violated due process because Barski lacked sleep and access to notes | Barski made only an oral, unsworn request for continuance; trial court offered accommodations and transport for his materials; Barski later said he had no objection to the interview evidence | No abuse of discretion; oral request insufficient; no prejudice shown |
Key Cases Cited
- Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (U.S. 1975) (establishes right to self-representation and required admonitions)
- Williams v. State, 252 S.W.3d 353 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (discusses Faretta standards and waiver review)
- Blankenship v. State, 673 S.W.2d 578 (Tex. Crim. App. 1984) (no particular script required for Faretta inquiry)
- Dolph v. State, 440 S.W.3d 898 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2013) (framework for when self-representation must be honored)
- Dewberry v. State, 4 S.W.3d 735 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999) (motion for continuance must be written and sworn to preserve complaint)
- Janecka v. State, 937 S.W.2d 456 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996) (denial of continuance reviewed for abuse of discretion and prejudice)