1

Abatement Order filed July 2 5 , 2019

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________ NO. 14

- 18

- 00009

- CR NO. 14

- 18

- 00010

- CR NO. 14

- 18

- 00021

- CR

____________ STEVEN KURT BAUGHM AN , Appellant

V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

On Appeal from the 174th D istrict Court

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 1532840

ABATEMENT ORDER Appellant is represented by appointed counsel, Nicholas Mensch. On July 11, 201 9 , appellant ’s counsel filed motion s to withdraw as counsel and to allow appellant to procee d pro se for the remainder of his appeal s . On July 10, 2019, appellant filed pro se motion s to exten d time to file motion s for rehearing.2

When a criminal appellant waives his right to appointed counsel, he waives many traditional benefits associated with th e 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 (20 00), the United St ates 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 defenda nts have no federa l constitutional right to represent themselves on direct appeal from a conviction. 528 U.S. at 154

– 6 2. The Court added, however, that appellate courts may, in the exercise of their discretion, allow a defendant to proceed pro se on appe al based on the bes t interests of the defendant and the government. Id. at 1 61

– 6 2. In other words, criminal defendants have no federal constitutional right to self

representation on direct appeal, but states are not precluded from recognizing such a right under their own con stitutions. Id

. This c ourt 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. St ate , 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 motion s for rehearing.
WE ORDER the j udge of the 174th District Court, to immediately conduct a h earing at which appel lant, appellant’s attorney, and state’s counsel shall be present to determine: (1) whether appellant desires to further prosecute his appeal s ; (2) whether appellant wishes to discharge his appointed attorney and proceed with his pro se motion s for rehearin g ; (3) whether the waiver of assistance of counsel is3

made voluntarily, knowingly , and intelligently; (4) whether appellant’s decision to proceed pro se is in the best interest of appellant and of the s tate; and (5) whether
appe llant 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 j udge 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 c lerk of this c ourt on or before August 2 3 , 2019

. The appeal s are abated, treated as closed case s , and removed from this

c ourt’s active docket. The appeal s will be reinstated on this c ourt’s active docket when the trial court’s findings and recommendations are filed in t his c ourt. The

c ourt will also consider an appropriate motion to reinstate the appeal s filed by either party, or the c ourt may reinstate the appeal s on its own motion. It is the responsibility of any party seeking reinstatement to request a hearing date fr om the trial court and to schedule a he aring in compliance with this c ourt’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 CURI AM

Panel Consists of Justices Wise, Zi mmerer, and Spain.