DocketNumber: 03-12-00464-CV
Filed Date: 7/24/2012
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 9/17/2015
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN NO. 03-12-00464-CV In re Mark David Simmons ORIGINAL PROCEEDING FROM HAYS COUNTY MEMORANDUM OPINION Relator, who is represented by appointed counsel in the underlying appeal from multiple criminal convictions, has filed a petition for writ of mandamus, complaining that the trial court clerk has not provided him with a copy of the record so that relator can represent himself on appeal. Because an attorney has been appointed to represent relator on direct appeal and relator does not have a constitutional right to self-representation, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus. First, relator does not have a right to hybrid representation. Ex parte Taylor,36 S.W.3d 883
, 887 (Tex. Crim App. 2001) (“Appellants are not allowed to have ‘hybrid representation’ on appeal, in which an appellant and an attorney can present independent points to an appellate court.”); see Marshall v. State,210 S.W.3d 618
, 620 n.1 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006), cert. denied,552 U.S. 842
(2007) (court refused to address appellant’s pro se brief because appellant had no right to hybrid representation); Patrick v. State,906 S.W.2d 481
, 498 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995) (appellant’s pro se supplemental brief presented nothing for review); Williams v. State, No. 03-09-00542-CR, 2011 Tex. App. LEXIS 1426, at *2 n.1 (Tex. App.—Austin Feb. 25, 2011, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (criminal defendant has no right to hybrid representation). Further, there is no federal constitutional right to self-representation on direct appeal. Martinez v. Court of Appeal of Cal. Fourth Appellate Dist.,528 U.S. 152
, 163-64 (2000); see Scheanette v. State,144 S.W.3d 503
, 505 n.2 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004). Nor is there a state constitutional right to self-representation on direct appeal. See Cormier v. State,85 S.W.3d 496
, 498 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2002, order); Stafford v. State,63 S.W.3d 502
, 506 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2001, order); Hadnot v. State,14 S.W.3d 348
, 350 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2000, order); Cain v. State,976 S.W.2d 228
, 235 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1998, no pet.); see also Williams, 2011 Tex. App. LEXIS 1426, at *2 n.1; In re Kuhn, No. 03-11-00570-CV, 2011 Tex. App. LEXIS 8655, at *3 (Tex. App.—Austin Oct. 28, 2011, orig. proc.).1 An attorney has been appointed to represent relator on appeal, and there is no right to self-representation on direct appeal.2 We therefore deny relator’s petition for writ of mandamus. __________________________________________ David Puryear, Justice Before Justices Puryear, Pemberton and Henson Filed: July 24, 2012 1 Ex parte Davis, cited by relator, followed earlier cases by the court of criminal appeals that extended the holding in Faretta v. California,422 U.S. 806
, 807 (1975), to appeals.818 S.W.2d 64
, 66 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). However, that extension was overruled by Martinez and its holding that a criminal defendant does not have a federal right to represent himself on appeal. See Martinez v. Court of Appeal of Cal. Fourth Appellate Dist.,528 U.S. 152
, 162-63 (2000); Glenn v. State, No. 03-03-00212-CR, 2003 Tex. App. LEXIS 7082, at *2 (Tex. App.—Austin Aug. 6, 2003, order). 2 The full record has not yet been filed in this Court, so relator’s petition, even if it had merit, is premature. 2
Faretta v. California , 95 S. Ct. 2525 ( 1975 )
Martinez v. Court of Appeal of California, Fourth Appellate ... , 120 S. Ct. 684 ( 2000 )
Cormier v. State , 85 S.W.3d 496 ( 2002 )
Hadnot v. State , 14 S.W.3d 348 ( 2000 )
Stafford v. State , 63 S.W.3d 502 ( 2001 )
Cain v. State , 976 S.W.2d 228 ( 1998 )
Ex Parte Taylor , 36 S.W.3d 883 ( 2001 )
Patrick v. State , 906 S.W.2d 481 ( 1995 )
Marshall v. State , 210 S.W.3d 618 ( 2006 )
Scheanette v. State , 144 S.W.3d 503 ( 2004 )