In The 

Court of Appeals 

Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo

No. 07-15-00091-CR 

No. 07-15-00106-CR 

No. 07-15-00107-CR 

EX PARTE DANIEL LEE AINSWORTH 

 

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 1 

Potter County, Texas 

Trial Court Nos. 141066, 141094, 141118; 

Honorable W. F. (Corky) Roberts, Presiding 

 

July 15, 2015 

 

ORDER OF ABATEMENT AND REMAND 

 

Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and PIRTLE, JJ. 

At a February 3, 2015 hearing, appellant Daniel Lee Ainsworth sought pretrial 

habeas corpus relief in trial court case numbers 141066 (terroristic threat, family 

violence); 141094 (assault (domestic violence)); and 141118 (interference with 

emergency telephone call). The court denied the requested habeas relief. Appellant 

expressed a desire to represent himself on appeal of the court’s denial of habeas relief, 

and filed, pro se, notice of appeal of each order. 
2

The three cases proceeded to a bench trial on April 27, 2015, and in each case 

appellant was convicted. The court sentenced appellant to a term of confinement in the 

county jail and a fine. Brooks Barfield, Jr. was appointed to represent appellant on 

direct appeal in each case and filed notices of appeal. Appellant’s three direct appeals 

are now pending.

Appellant’s brief in the three pretrial habeas appeals was due for filing on or 

before June 29, 2015. No brief was filed, however, and appellant has not moved for 

additional time. 

The Sixth Amendment right to self-representation at trial does not extend to the 

appeal stage, nor does the Texas constitution provide such a right on appeal. Martinez 

v. California, 528 U.S. 152, 163, 120 S. Ct. 684, 145 L. Ed. 2d 597 (2000); Hadnot v. 

State, 14 S.W.3d 348, 350 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2000, no pet.) (“No Texas 

court has recognized a state constitutional right to self representation on direct appeal”). 

As do other Texas courts, we review a request for self-representation in a 

criminal appeal on a case-by-case basis that considers the best interest of the 

appellant, the State, and the administration of justice. Bibbs v. State, No. 07-10-0300-

CR, 2011 Tex. App. Lexis 8426, at *2-3 (Tex. App.—Amarillo Oct. 21, 2011) (order of 

abatement and remand); Cormier v. State, 85 S.W.3d 496, 498 (Tex. App.—Houston 

[1st Dist.] 2002, no pet.). An appellant cannot use his desire for self-representation as a 

means of manipulating or obstructing the orderly procedure of the court or interfering 

with the fair administration of justice. Martinez v. State, 163 S.W.3d 88, 90 (Tex. App.—
3

Amarillo 2006, order) (disposition on merits at 163 S.W.3d 92 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 

2005, no pet.)).

Appellant is now a party to six pending appellate cases in this Court. In the three 

pretrial habeas appeals, he appears pro se and in the three related merits appeals he 

has court-appointed counsel. As noted, his appellate brief in the cases in which he 

represents himself are past due. Given the complexity of this environment and its 

potential for confusion, we abate the three pretrial habeas appeals and remand the 

cases to the trial court for further proceedings. On remand, the trial court shall use 

whatever means it finds necessary, which may include noticing and conducting a 

hearing, to determine the following: 

1. although we assume the trial court has determined appellant is 

unable to afford the cost of counsel, whether appellant is indigent 

and entitled to appointed counsel on appeal;

2. whether appellant still desires to represent himself in the three 

pretrial habeas appeals;

3. if appellant wishes to represent himself, whether appellant’s 

decision to do so is competently and intelligently made, including 

whether appellant is aware of the dangers and disadvantages of 

self-representation on appeal, see Hubbard v. State, 739 S.W.2d 

341, 345 (Tex. Crim. App. 1987); and

4. if appellant wishes to represent himself, whether allowing him to do 

so is in his best interest, in the State’s best interest, and in 

furtherance of the proper administration of justice.

If the trial court determines that appellant is indigent and entitled to appointed 

counsel and if the court determines that appellant does not now desire to represent 

himself on appeal, OR determines that his doing so is not in the best interest of the 

appellant, the State and the administration of justice, the trial court shall appoint counsel 
4

for appellant. As noted, Mr. Barfield already represents appellant on direct appeal. 

Whether the court appoints Mr. Barfield or another attorney is a matter wholly for its 

determination. In any event, the court shall cause the name, address, telephone 

number, fax number, United States Postal Service address, e-mail address, and state 

bar number of the appointed attorney to be provided to this Court. 

The court shall issue findings and recommendations expressing its 

determinations on the issues listed above. In addition, if the court does not appoint 

counsel for appellant but instead recommends that this Court permit appellant to 

represent himself on appeal, it shall determine, and express as a finding, when this 

Court reasonably can expect to receive appellate briefs from appellant.

If the court recommends that we permit appellant to represent himself on appeal, 

we will review that recommendation and issue further orders on reinstatement of the 

appeals. 

The trial court shall also cause to be developed 1) a supplemental clerk’s record 

to be filed in each of the pretrial habeas appeals containing the findings, 

recommendations and any orders the court signs, and 2) a supplemental reporter’s 

record transcribing the evidence and argument presented at any hearing held. The 

supplemental clerk’s record and reporter’s record, if any, shall be filed by the trial court 

with the clerk of this court on or before August 17, 2015, unless additional time is 

requested.
5

Because we have abated the appeals, appellant need not and shall not file an 

appellate brief in any of the pretrial habeas appeals until further order of the Court. 

It is so ordered.

Per Curiam

Do not publish.