The Eleventh Court of Appeals affirmed his conviction. Nelson v. State, No. 11-03-00235-CR (Tex.App.-Eastland, September 8, 2005). Applicant contends that his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance because counsel failed to interview Milton Burnes ("Burnes"), who owned the car where the heroin was found and lived in the apartment identified by the affidavit in support of the search and arrest warrant, after Applicant informed him that Burnes was willing to testify that the heroin was Burnes's.
ssue because appellant never clearly asserted his desire to represent himself. The State further argues that even if appellant did assert this right, he waived it by proceeding to trial with his court-appointed counsel without objection. We agree. In his Motion to Dismiss Court-Appointed Counsel, appellant asked the trial court to dismiss his court-appointed counsel and appoint new counsel from a list of three names he provided. In his Motion to Require Defendant to Assist Counsel, appellant requested that he be permitted to assist his counsel Ain a pro-se status at every stage of the trial proceedings." The Motion for the Trial Court to Make Specific Rulings asked the trial court to rule on appellant's other motions. Nowhere in these motions does appellant expressly state a desire to proceed solely in a pro se status without any assistance from an attorney. We conclude appellant's motions did not clearly and unequivocally assert his right to self-representation. See Nelson v. State, No. 11-03-00235-CR, 2005 WL 2156630, at *2-3 (Tex.App.-Eastland Sept. 8, 2005, pet. dism'd) (not designated for publication) (holding that filing a motion to act as co-counsel does not clearly and unequivocally assert right to self-representation); Thomas v. State, No. 05-04-01289-CR, 2006 WL 1624393, at *2 (Tex.App.-Dallas June 13, 2006, pet. ref'd) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (finding that defendant who told trial court he did not agree with counsel's strategy and did not want that attorney representing him, but who made no request that he be allowed to represent himself without counsel, failed to assert his right to proceed pro se). Moreover, even if these motions could be construed as clearly and unequivocally asserting the right to proceed pro se, we find appellant waived this right. By proceeding to trial and allowing counsel to represent him without objection and without expressing an unwavering desire to conduct his own defense, appellant waived any inferred request for self-representation. See Funderburg v. State, 717 S.W.2d 637, 642 (Tex.Crim.App. 1