1

Abatement Order filed July 25, 2019 

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-18-00009-CR

NO. 14-18-00010-CR

NO. 14-18-00021-CR

____________

STEVEN KURT BAUGHMAN, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 174th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 1532840

ABATEMENT ORDER

Appellant is represented by appointed counsel, Nicholas Mensch. On July 

11, 2019, appellant’s counsel filed motions to withdraw as counsel and to allow 

appellant to proceed pro se for the remainder of his appeals. On July 10, 2019, 

appellant filed pro se motions to extend time to file motions for rehearing. 
2

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. 528 

U.S. at 154–62. The Court added, however, 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 selfrepresentation 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). In this case, appellant and trial 

counsel are in apparent disagreement regarding the motions for rehearing. 

WE ORDER the judge of the 174th District Court, to immediately conduct a 

hearing at which appellant, appellant’s attorney, and state’s counsel shall be 

present to determine: (1) whether appellant desires to further prosecute his appeals; 

(2) whether appellant wishes to discharge his appointed attorney and proceed with 

his pro se motions for rehearing; (3) whether the waiver of assistance of counsel is 
3

made voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently; (4) whether appellant’s decision to 

proceed pro se is in the best interest of appellant and of the state; and (5) whether 

appellant is fully aware of the dangers and disadvantages of self-representation. 

See Funderburg v. State, 717 S.W.2d 637 (Tex. Crim. App. 1986); Webb v. State, 

533 S.W.2d 780 (Tex. Crim. App. 1976); Trevino v. State, 555 S.W.2d 750 (Tex. 

Crim. App. 1977). 

WE FURTHER ORDER the judge of the 174th Court, to have a court 

reporter present to prepare a reporter’s record. The reporter’s record, and a 

supplemental clerk’s record containing the trial court’s findings, shall be filed with 

the clerk of this court on or before August 23, 2019.

The appeals are abated, treated as closed cases, and removed from this 

court’s active docket. The appeals will be reinstated on this court’s active docket 

when the trial court’s findings and recommendations are filed in this court. The 

court will also consider an appropriate motion to reinstate the appeals filed by 

either party, or the court may reinstate the appeals on its own motion. It is the 

responsibility of any party seeking reinstatement to request a hearing date from the 

trial court and to schedule a hearing in compliance with this court’s order. If the 

parties do not request a hearing, the court coordinator of the trial court shall set a 

hearing date and notify the parties of such date.

It is so ORDERED.

PER CURIAM

Panel Consists of Justices Wise, Zimmerer, and Spain.