Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
EX PARTE QUINCY BLAKELY
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Quincy Blakely appeals the trial court's order declining to review the merits of his pro se pretrial application for writ of habeas corpus. We dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.
Appellant was charged with assault of a public servant. The record includes a “rebuttal to appointment of counsel for indigent defendant” in which appellant confirms that the trial court appointed counsel to represent him on August 15, 2017. Appellant contends the appointment of counsel was made without his request or consent.
On September 20, 2017, appellant filed a pro se pretrial application for writ of habeas corpus raising various issues. On October 2, 2017, the trial court entered an order declining to address the merits of appellant's pro se writ application because he is represented by counsel and not entitled to hybrid representation. Finding “insufficient cause,” the trial court refused to issue the writ.
A criminal defendant has no right to hybrid representation. Robinson v. State, 240 S.W.3d 919, 922 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007). Consequently, the trial court is free to disregard any pro se motions presented by a defendant represented by counsel. Id. The trial court's decision not to rule upon a pro se motion presented by a defendant represented by counsel is not subject to review on appeal. Id.
Furthermore, when, as here, the trial court declines to review the merits of a pretrial habeas application and refuses to issue the writ, this Court does not have jurisdiction to review the trial court's determination. See Ex parte Hargett, 819 S.W.2d 866, 868–69 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991), superceded by statute in article 11.072 writ cases as recognized by Ex parte Villanueva, 252 S.W.3d 391 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008); Ex parte Noe, 646 S.W.2d 230, 231 (Tex. Crim. App. 1983); Ex parte Young, 257 S.W.3d 276, 277 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 2008, no pet.).
We dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.
JUDGMENT
Based on the Court's opinion of this date, the appeal is DISMISSED.
Judgment entered this 15th day of December, 2017.
ELIZABETH LANG-MIERS JUSTICE
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: No. 05-17-01305-CR
Decided: December 15, 2017
Court: Court of Appeals of Texas, Dallas.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)