Opinion
NO. 14-16-00353-CR
07-06-2017
JOSE GUADELUPE GUERRERO, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 209th District Court Harris County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 1292569
ORDER
Appellant is represented by appointed counsel, Daucie Schindler. On June 26, 2017, appellant filed a motion to dismiss his appointed attorney and to proceed pro se on appeal.
When a criminal appellant waives his right to appointed counsel, he waives many traditional benefits associated with the right to counsel. Before an appellant may dismiss appointed counsel and proceed pro se, the waiver must be "knowingly and intelligently" made. See Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (1975).
In Martinez v. California, 528 U.S. 152 (2000), the United States Supreme Court reaffirmed its holding that criminal defendants have a constitutional right to conduct their own defense at trial, if they voluntarily and intelligently elect to do so; however, the Court then held that criminal defendants have no federal constitutional right to represent themselves on direct appeal from a conviction. Id. at 154, 62. The Court added that appellate courts may, in the exercise of their discretion, allow a defendant to proceed pro se on appeal based on the best interests of the defendant and the government. Id. at 161, 62. In other words, criminal defendants have no federal constitutional right to self-representation on direct appeal, but states are not precluded from recognizing such a right under their own constitutions. Id.
This court has adopted the standard established in Martinez, and we review requests to proceed pro se on a case-by-case basis considering the best interests of both the criminal appellant and the State. See Hadnot v. State, 14 S.W.3d 348, 349 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2000) (order).
Appellant contends a conflict of interest has arisen because Schindler did not and will not raise certain issues in appellant's brief. He also asserts Schindler has not responded to his letters.
Schindler filed appellant's brief on December 21, 2016. The brief raises two points of error and contains argument and citation to authority. The appeal was submitted on the briefs on April 12, 2017. Appellant did not ask this court to allow him to represent himself until June 26, 2017, six months after his brief was filed and two months after submission. Under these circumstances, it would not be in the best interest of either appellant or the State to allow appellant to waive counsel and proceed pro se. Hadnot, 14 S.W.3d at 349 (denying appellant's request to dismiss his lawyer and represent himself in part because his lawyer had already filed a brief).
Accordingly, appellant's motion is denied.
PER CURIAM Panel consists of Justices Boyce, Jamison, and Brown.