Steve McNeal v. State of Texas ( 2001 )

NO. 07-01-0267-CR
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
AT AMARILLO
PANEL A
OCTOBER 17, 2001
______________________________
STEVE D. MCNEAL, APPELLANT
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE
_________________________________
FROM THE 364TH DISTRICT COURT OF LUBBOCK COUNTY;
NO. 99-431348; HONORABLE JIM B. DARNELL, JUDGE
_______________________________
Before BOYD, C.J., and REAVIS and JOHNSON, JJ.
ON MOTION FOR HEARING TO ADDUCE FACTS NOT LISTED IN RECORD
Appellant Steve D. McNeal was charged with the offense of assault on a public
servant. Pursuant to a plea bargain agreement, he pled guilty and was sentenced to five
years imprisonment in the Institutional Division of the Department of Criminal Justice.
Appellant timely filed a pro se notice of appeal from that conviction and requested the
appointment of counsel. We then abated the appeal so that the trial court could appoint
counsel to represent appellant. Counsel was appointed for appellant and that counsel
filed a motion for new trial with the trial court, which was denied. Counsel has since filed
an appellate brief on appellant’s behalf.
Appellant has now filed a pro se motion for hearing to adduce facts not shown in the
record. He seeks by this hearing to learn (1) if competency issues were suppressed from
the trial judge, (2) if his initial trial counsel surrendered to his subsequent trial counsel
relevant documents in his file, (3) if his trial counsel gave false or misleading information
to the trial judge concerning appellant’s competency, (4) if his trial counsel filed any pretrial
motions, served subpoenas, gathered information, interviewed witnesses, examined
physical evidence, performed legal research, and prepared reports, (5) if his trial counsel’s
conduct deprived him of an informed and voluntary plea, (6) if documents were removed
from the clerk’s record illegally, (7) if he received effective assistance of counsel, and (8)
if “all these issues may amount to a farce and mockery of justice.” Appellant complains
that his appellate counsel does not consider these issues important.
A defendant is not entitled to hybrid representation, and thus may not proceed pro
se and be represented by counsel at the same time. Rudd v. State, 616 S.W.2d 623, 625
(Tex.Crim.App. 1981); Stelbacky v. State, 22 S.W.3d 583, 586 (Tex.App.--Amarillo 2000,
no pet.). Appellant requested and was appointed counsel to represent him on appeal. We
are therefore not required to consider his pro se motion for hearing. However, we note
2
parenthetically that appellant’s counsel has raised as an issue on appeal whether the trial
court erred in failing to hold a hearing on his motion for new trial, which motion asserted
matters of ineffective assistance of counsel, the court’s rulings on appellant’s pretrial
motions, appellant’s competency and the voluntariness of his plea, and the failure of due
process due to a lack of speedy trial. Appellant’s counsel has also raised the issue of
whether the trial court erred in ruling on the motions of trial counsel to withdraw without a
hearing conducted in the presence of appellant. Thus, it seems that appellate counsel has
brought forth on appeal many of the concerns raised by appellant.
For the reasons set forth, we overrule appellant’s motion for a hearing to adduce
facts not in the record.
Per Curiam
Do not publish.
3