explaining that criminal defendant is not entitled to hybrid representation and that trial court has no legal duty to rule on pro se motions or petitions filed in criminal proceeding in which defendant is represented by counsel
How later courts described this case
- explaining that criminal defendant is not entitled to hybrid representation and that trial court has no legal duty to rule on pro se motions or petitions filed in criminal proceeding in which defendant is represented by counsel
- explaining that “a defendant has no right to hybrid representation” and that, “as a consequence, a trial court is free to disregard any pro se motions presented by a defendant who is represented by counsel”
- holding that “a defendant has no right to hybrid representation” and, “as a consequence, a trial court is free to disregard any pro se motions presented by a defendant who is represented by counsel”
- explaining that because a defendant does not have a right to hybrid representation, a trial court is free to disregard pro se motions filed by the defendant while represented by counsel
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
KELLER, P.J.,
filed a dissenting opinion.
The Court acknowledges that we have no evidence in the record regarding the trial court’s intent when it denied appellant’s pro se motion for new trial. Because a trial court can “deny” a represented defendant’s pro se motion for the reason that the motion is not properly before the court, the silent record in this case does not support appellant’s claim for relief.
The Court, however, remands this case to the court of appeals to “determine” the trial court’s intent. Since the record contains no indicia of intent, how will the court of appeals determine it? The only possible method would be to remand the case to the trial court to elicit an answer. But no authority exists for such a remand. The appellate rules permit a remand to the trial court if the trial court committed an error that impedes the presentation of the cause to the court of appeals. 1 It is not enough that the trial court could supply information useful to evaluating a party’s claim if the absence of that information was not due to any error on the trial court’s part. 2
The burden is on the losing party to ensure that the record shows that he is entitled to relief. Rather than remand to allow the losing party in this case to add to the trial record, I would hold that appellant has not met his burden. I would affirm the judgment of the court of appeals.
With these comments, I respectfully dissent.
. Tex.R.App. P. 44.4 (remand permitted to remedy "erroneous action or failure or refusal to act”).
. Fakeye v. State, 227 S.W.3d 714, 717-18 (Tex.Crim.App.2007).