Roy Lee Ford v. State of Texas

Citation: Not availableDocket: 11-07-00109-CR

Court: Court of Appeals of Texas; February 25, 2009; Texas; State Appellate Court

Original Court Document: View Document

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Roy Lee Ford was convicted of aggravated sexual assault of a disabled child and sentenced to life confinement in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. He did not dispute the sufficiency of the evidence against him, which included testimony from a passerby who witnessed the assault and medical evidence of the victim's injuries. Ford, dissatisfied with his appointed counsel, sought to represent himself pro se. During a hearing, he acknowledged his suspended attorney license but insisted on conducting his own defense, citing inadequate communication with his counsel. The trial court permitted Ford to represent himself while appointing his counsel as standby. Despite expressing a desire for more substantial legal assistance close to trial, the court reaffirmed Ford's choice to proceed pro se, emphasizing that he could not expect last-minute support from counsel. The trial proceeded with the court advising Ford that interruptions could be detrimental to his case. The court ultimately affirmed the conviction.

Appellant raises three issues: inadequate admonishment regarding self-representation, denial of the right to counsel, and being shackled during trial. The right to counsel and the right to self-representation are guaranteed under the Sixth Amendment. For a defendant to waive the right to counsel and opt for self-representation, they must be aware of the dangers involved, which the trial court must confirm through proper admonishments. However, there is no mandated script for these warnings. In this case, appellant's prior experience as an attorney indicated his awareness of the risks associated with self-representation, and he expressed this knowledge to the trial court, allowing the court to conclude that his waiver of counsel was informed.

Regarding the second issue, appellant argued that the trial court erred by not appointing counsel when he requested it on the trial date. Although defendants can withdraw their waiver of counsel, courts have discretion to ensure that the proceedings remain orderly. The trial court noted that appellant had not requested counsel in the ten months leading up to the trial and that appointing counsel at that late stage would likely delay proceedings. The court's decision to deny the request for counsel was deemed not to constitute an abuse of discretion. Both the first and second issues raised by appellant are therefore overruled.

Appellant challenges the trial court's decision to shackle him during the trial, claiming it lacked sufficient justification. The shackling was first noted during jury voir dire, where appellant expressed frustration about being restrained. The trial court explained that the restraints were necessary due to appellant's combative behavior, aiming to ensure safety. The presumption of innocence, a fundamental right under the Fourteenth Amendment, is compromised when a jury sees a defendant in shackles; however, the court took precautions to conceal the shackles with a skirt around the counsel table. Appellant's argument that the shackles negatively impacted his presumption of innocence was rejected, as the jury was largely unaware of the restraints until appellant mentioned them, seemingly to elicit sympathy. Additionally, the trial court allowed appellant to conduct a demonstration at the counsel table despite the restraints, which the court deemed appropriate given the circumstances. The appellate review confirmed no abuse of discretion by the trial court, leading to the overruling of appellant's issue and affirmation of the trial court's judgment.