Ronnie Hue Montgomery v. State, 03-15-00203-CR

Ronnie Hue Montgomery was indicted for evading arrest with a vehicle; trial (guilt and punishment) occurred March 3, 2015, and the jury found him guilty and assessed five years' confinement with community supervision recommended.
Montgomery signed a Waiver of Right to Counsel on January 26, 2015; the clerk’s record shows the signed waiver but no contemporaneous Faretta colloquy in the record before that date.
The first on-record judicial admonitions about self-representation occurred on March 2, 2015 (more than four weeks after the January 26 waiver) and again immediately prior to voir dire; both references treat prior warnings as having been given but the earlier warnings are not in the record.
Standby counsel (Thomas Weber) was appointed February 12, 2015, after the waiver was signed.
Appellant (through counsel Rickey D. Jones) argues the record lacks evidence that Montgomery knowingly and intelligently waived counsel as required by Faretta and Texas authorities, and thus contends the waiver was invalid and reversal with remand for a new trial is required.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the record shows a valid, knowing, and intelligent waiver of counsel (Faretta requirements) prior to Montgomery's January 26, 2015 waiver	State would contend waiver was effective or any defects are harmless (implicit; trial proceeded with stand-by counsel and later admonitions)	Montgomery: no Faretta warnings or colloquy exist in the record before he signed the waiver, so the waiver was not knowing/intelligent and is invalid	Appellant argues reversible error; brief seeks reversal and remand (no appellate ruling provided in this brief)

Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (1975) (defendant has right to self-representation; waiver must be knowing and intelligent and court must warn of dangers and disadvantages)
Williams v. State, 252 S.W.3d 353 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (invalid waiver of counsel is structural error; courts must examine totality of circumstances and cannot lightly infer waiver)
Cordova v. Baca, 346 F.3d 924 (9th Cir. 2003) (defendant tried without counsel and without effective waiver requires automatic reversal; harmless-error inquiry inadequate)
United States v. Balough, 820 F.2d 1485 (9th Cir. 1987) (rare cases may show waiver from record as whole, but focus must be on what defendant understood, and mere exposure to legal process is insufficient)
United States v. Virgil, 444 F.3d 447 (5th Cir. 2006) (discusses limits of harmless-error analysis in Faretta contexts and distinguishes trial versus sentencing contexts)