Reset A A Font size: Print

Court of Appeals of Texas, Dallas.


No. 05-17-01305-CR

Decided: December 15, 2017

Before Justices Lang-Miers, Fillmore, and Stoddart


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 App. 1991), superceded by statute in article 11.072 writ cases as recognized by Ex parte Villanueva, 252 S.W.3d 391 (Tex.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.


Based on the Court's opinion of this date, the appeal is DISMISSED.

Judgment entered this 15th day of December, 2017.


Copied to clipboard