He fires his lawyer because he watched Law & Order — jury gives him 40 years

A Texas defendant facing an aggravated robbery case decided to fire his lawyer and represent himself after telling the judge he had grown up watching “Law & Order” and “CSI,” a choice that quickly became the defining feature of a trial that ended with a 40-year prison sentence.

Courtroom footage published by Judge Fleischer Fans shows Treylyn Hill asking Judge Raquel West to let him handle his own defense, despite repeated warnings that he would be held to the same courtroom rules as an experienced attorney. West told him several times that she believed the decision was a serious mistake, but Hill insisted he wanted control of his own case.

“I was raised up on Law & Order my whole life,” Hill told the court, pointing to his grandmother in the gallery as he also mentioned watching “CSI.”

West replied that if Hill had the chance to speak with his grandmother, “she would tell you this is a terrible idea.”

Judge West Warned Him Repeatedly

Before allowing Hill to represent himself, West went through a long series of questions designed to make sure he understood what he was giving up.

She noted that he had previously been evaluated and found competent to stand trial, and she asked whether he understood the aggravated robbery charge and the possible punishment, which ranged from five years to 99 years or life.

Hill said he understood.

West then explained the more practical problem: knowing television courtroom drama is very different from knowing evidence rules, procedure and trial strategy.

She told Hill that prosecutor Luke Nichols had years of courtroom experience and that Hill’s appointed attorney, identified in the footage as Ms. Perrazzo, had practiced for decades. Hill, by contrast, admitted he had never represented himself in a criminal case before.

West warned that she could not act as his lawyer from the bench.

“All I can do is stop you when you’re doing something wrong,” she told him, adding that being repeatedly corrected in front of the jury could make him appear unprepared or disrespectful.

That warning turned out to be especially important. Self-representation may sound like taking control, but a criminal trial is built around rules that are often invisible to people who have never practiced law. Knowing what you want to say is not the same thing as knowing when the law allows you to say it.

Hill nevertheless told West he was afraid to leave his future in someone else’s hands.

“Sometimes when you want something done, why you got to do it yourself?” he said.

West answered that while she might agree with that idea in some parts of life, she did not agree with it here.

“I think you’re making a terrible mistake,” she said.

His Own Testimony Quickly Became Difficult

Once Hill took the witness stand, the problems West had predicted began to appear.

He spoke quickly and quietly enough that the judge had to tell him to slow down and speak clearly. Hill then began discussing his time in jail, previous attorneys, money his family had spent on legal representation, and what he described as difficult treatment while in custody.

At times, his testimony drifted away from the issue directly in front of the jury.

Hill referred to constitutional amendments, previous court proceedings and what he believed was a lack of evidence, but West had to remind him that the jury had already found him guilty and that this part of the trial concerned punishment.

“They’ve already done that,” West told him after Hill referred to the state’s burden to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. “They’ve already found you guilty. So, this is just about punishment.”

Hill then asked the jury for community supervision, saying he wanted an opportunity to return to boxing and rebuild his life outside prison.

He also spoke about losing his grandfather while he was incarcerated and described his background, saying he had grown up without his biological mother or father.

Those points may have been intended to create sympathy, but the punishment phase soon moved in a much harsher direction once Nichols began cross-examining him.

Prosecutor Pressed Hill On His Conduct

Nichols questioned Hill about other pending cases, prior police encounters and his behavior while in jail.

The exchange repeatedly became combative.

When Nichols asked about a prior fleeing case, Hill tried to explain that he had trouble paying for insurance and had been frustrated by police stops. Nichols eventually cut through the explanation and reminded him that the jury was not considering his insurance problems.

“You’re on trial for shooting at Kate Torres and at James Flanigan,” Nichols told him.

Hill responded that there was no proof.

Nichols reminded him that the jury had already found him guilty.

“I don’t understand how I could be found guilty if there’s no proof,” Hill said.

That moment captured one of the central problems with representing himself: Hill continued arguing the guilt phase during sentencing, even though the jury’s verdict had already settled that issue.

Nichols also questioned him about allegations involving his former girlfriend, jail misconduct and threats against a police officer.

At one point, Hill admitted taking pepper spray from a desk and using it on another inmate, although he resisted Nichols’ description that he had “stolen” it.

“Stole is a hard word to say,” Hill said.

Nichols asked whether the spray belonged to him.

Hill said it did not.

The prosecutor also confronted him with threats he had allegedly made toward an officer, including statements about shooting the officer and harming his family. Hill acknowledged making some of the statements but said he had blurted them out while angry.

Nichols asked whether that made threatening someone’s children acceptable.

“No, sir,” Hill answered.

Hill Asked For Another Chance

During his closing remarks, Hill apologized to the jury and continued trying to explain his behavior.

He said he had been through difficult experiences, described himself as adopted and told jurors he believed he still had opportunities to become a better person.

Hill asked them to consider a punishment that would allow him to return home and eventually get back into boxing.

His argument was emotional in places, but it was also scattered, and he again mixed questions about guilt with requests for leniency.

That is where the contrast between Hill and Nichols became especially clear. Hill spoke mostly from personal frustration and instinct, while Nichols gave the jury a structured argument built around punishment, public safety and a pattern of alleged conduct.

Prosecutor Asked For A Substantial Sentence

Nichols told jurors that the punishment evidence confirmed the concerns raised during the guilt phase.

He argued that Hill’s conduct had escalated from threats to violence and said the jury should impose a sentence long enough to prevent further harm.

“I don’t want him to escalate to a murder,” Nichols said.

He also argued that Hill’s behavior in custody showed he was not a good candidate for probation.

“Probation is for people who can follow rules,” Nichols told the jury.

Nichols did not give the jury a specific number of years, but he asked for a “substantial” sentence that would keep Hill from returning quickly to the community.

He also acknowledged that jurors might feel sympathy for Hill because of his age and erratic behavior, but he urged them to focus on the violence they had heard about.

The prosecutor’s closing was much more disciplined than Hill’s, which makes the earlier warnings from Judge West stand out even more. A defendant representing himself does not merely lose legal advice; he also has to compete in real time against someone trained to organize facts, control witnesses and make arguments within strict rules.

Jury Returns With 40 Years

After deliberating, the jury returned with its punishment decision.

The foreperson announced that Hill had been sentenced to 40 years in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, with no fine.

West then polled the jury individually, asking each member whether the verdict was his or hers. Each juror confirmed it.

The judge formally accepted the verdict and sentenced Hill to 40 years, with credit for eligible time already spent in custody.

West also reminded him of his appeal rights and his prohibition on possessing firearms or ammunition, then ordered him held in the Jefferson County facility until transfer to state custody.

By the end, the same judge who had warned Hill that representing himself was a “terrible idea” was the one formally imposing the jury’s sentence.

The outcome does not prove that keeping his lawyer would have produced a different verdict or punishment, and there is no way to know what the jury would have done under another defense strategy. Still, the footage gives a remarkably clear look at why judges are often so cautious when defendants decide to act as their own attorneys.

Hill believed familiarity with courtroom television and some legal reading would help him tell his story better than his lawyer could. Once the trial moved forward, however, the gap between knowing what you want to say and knowing how to present it legally became difficult to miss.