Texas Case Summaries
Federal Enforcement »

Harris v. State — Reversed conviction because Harris was not warned about the dangers of representing himself

Unreported / Non-Citable

Case
Derrick Dewayne Harris v. The State of Texas
Court
Texas Sixth Court of Appeals
Judge
Stevens, C.J. (elected 2018); van Cleef (Greg Abbott, 2022); Rambin
Date Decided
September 4, 2026
Docket No.
06-25-00170-CR
Topics
Right to Counsel; Self-Representation; Faretta Warnings; Criminal Appeals
Source
Read the full opinion

Background

A jury convicted Derrick Dewayne Harris of unauthorized use of a motor vehicle, a state-jail felony. The trial court sentenced him to twenty-two months in state jail. Harris’s trial counsel had moved to withdraw after Harris accused counsel of unlawful conduct and filed a grievance against him.

At the withdrawal hearing, Harris confirmed that he intended to represent himself. The trial court granted counsel’s withdrawal, ordered Harris to serve as his own attorney, and designated the former attorney as “backup counsel.” The record contained no warnings about the dangers and disadvantages of self-representation. On the day of trial, Harris said that he had not examined the evidence, expressed that he did not understand, and declined to question prospective jurors.

The Court’s Holding

The Sixth Court of Appeals held that Harris did not knowingly and intelligently waive his right to counsel. Although no prescribed script is required, the trial court had to ensure that Harris understood the dangers and disadvantages of proceeding without counsel, including the technical rules of evidence and procedure and the fact that he would receive no special consideration as a self-represented defendant. The trial court gave Harris no such admonishments.

The court rejected the State’s argument that the designation of “backup counsel” made Faretta warnings unnecessary. Harris had been ordered to act as his own attorney and did not consult backup counsel during jury selection, a critical stage of the prosecution. Because the invalid waiver left Harris’s right to counsel intact, the error was reversible without a harm analysis and prejudice was presumed. The court reversed the judgment and remanded for a new trial.

Key Takeaways

  • A defendant may represent himself only after knowingly and intelligently waiving the right to counsel.
  • Designating withdrawn counsel as standby or “backup” counsel does not eliminate the need for warnings about self-representation.
  • Failure to provide the required Faretta admonishments is reversible error for which prejudice is presumed.

Why It Matters

Trial courts must make an affirmative record showing that a criminal defendant understands the practical and legal risks of proceeding pro se. Merely confirming that the defendant wants to represent himself, even while assigning backup counsel, is insufficient.

The decision also underscores the importance of representation during jury selection. When a defendant proceeds alone at that critical stage without a valid waiver of counsel, the resulting conviction cannot be preserved through harmless-error review.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Scroll to Top