Guadalupe Richardson v. State
13-14-00723-CR
| Tex. App. | Jul 27, 2015Background
- Appellant Guadalupe Richardson pleaded guilty in 2010 to aggravated assault with a deadly weapon and received five years deferred adjudication community supervision.
- The State filed a motion to revoke on Oct. 22, 2014, alleging new convictions (DWI and a family-violence assault in Virginia on Aug. 28, 2014) and failure to complete required counseling/classes.
- Richardson, indigent, requested appointed counsel and appeared with counsel at the Nov. 24, 2014 revocation hearing, where he pleaded "true" to the allegations.
- The signed admonishments in the revocation file left blank the underlying offense, date of offense, and date community supervision was imposed. The court asked basic questions and warned there are no plea bargains in revocation proceedings.
- The trial court revoked community supervision, adjudicated Richardson guilty, and sentenced him to two years; Richardson timely appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether court must admonish defendant in revocation proceedings that he has a constitutional right to self-representation | State: no claim that defendant requested to proceed pro se; admonishments and inquiry were adequate | Richardson: trial court failed to admonish about right to proceed pro se (Faretta) — record lacks a Faretta admonishment | Counsel concluded no preserved error: Richardson never requested to proceed pro se and requested appointed counsel; no reversible Faretta error identified |
| Whether admonishments that omit identifying the original charge/date of offense/date of supervision are sufficient | State: revocation evidence and defendant's testimony established identity and violations; no objection made at trial | Richardson: signed admonishments did not identify the original offense, date, or supervision date, possibly rendering admonishments insufficient | Court (per Anders brief): omission noted but no authority found rendering revocation void; no objection was preserved; record shows defendant acknowledged being the supervised person and the court’s actions fell within discretion |
| Whether counsel may withdraw under Anders when no non-frivolous grounds exist | State: counsel followed Anders procedures and provided defendant notice/options | Richardson: N/A | Counsel filed an Anders brief asserting no non-frivolous issues and moved to withdraw; appellate court to review for arguable grounds |
| Whether any identified irregularities require remand for briefing or appointment of new counsel | State: discretionary | Richardson: requested further briefing if court finds arguable issues | Counsel asked that if court deems issues non-frivolous, briefing be ordered or new counsel appointed; otherwise appeal is frivolous per Anders |
Key Cases Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) (procedural requirements when counsel seeks to withdraw on appeal as frivolous)
- Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (1975) (criminal defendant has right to self-representation and must be admonished of dangers)
- Williams v. State, 252 S.W.3d 353 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (Faretta admonishment requirements and effect on review)
- Collier v. State, 959 S.W.2d 621 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997) (voluntary and intelligent waiver of counsel requires knowing, thorough admonishment)
- United States v. Gonzalez-Lopez, 548 U.S. 140 (2006) (right to counsel of choice is distinct and fundamental)
- Adams v. United States ex rel. McCann, 317 U.S. 269 (1942) (warning about dangers of self-representation)
- Seagraves v. State, 342 S.W.3d 176 (Tex. App.–Texarkana 2011) (application of admonishment/substantial-compliance principles in revocation-like proceedings)