Court Opinion

ID: 9396050
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-19 10:09:58.33053+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:13.715146
License: Public Domain

IN THE
                          TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

                                 No. 10-23-00107-CR

                          IN RE BRYAN STALLWORTH

                                Original Proceeding

                            From the 12th District Court
                               Walker County, Texas
                               Trial Court No. 30582

                             DISSENTING OPINION

      According to the petition for a writ of mandamus, Stallworth is in jail pending

trial; and over six months ago, Stallworth filed a motion in which he sought to represent

himself in the trial court proceeding. The motion has not been ruled upon. Such a motion

does not violate the prohibition against hybrid representation. And if Stallworth desires

to represent himself in the pending criminal proceeding, any unreasonable delay in

ruling on the motion potentially prejudices Stallworth’s right to self-representation.
        It is not apparent from the Court’s opinion why the petition is being denied. Is it

being denied because there is some procedural defect or irregularity, or because

Stallworth is not entitled to a ruling on the motion, or because he is asking the Court to

render a specific ruling 1? If it is the first of these reasons, we should not deny the petition,

at least not without giving notice and an opportunity to cure the procedural defect or

irregularity. TEX. R. APP. P. 44.3. If it is the latter reason, we frequently explain to litigants,

even those represented by counsel, that the petition for writ of mandamus is being denied

because we cannot issue the writ to compel the trial court to rule in a certain way. We do

not do that here. We can, however, issue a writ to compel the trial court to rule on a

motion that has been pending a sufficient length of time for the trial court to have

considered the motion.

        We previously denied a petition for a writ of mandamus on the principle that

Stallworth is not entitled to hybrid representation; so, the trial court had no duty to rule

on his motion. See In re Stallworth, No. 10-23-00055-CR, 2023 Tex. App. LEXIS 1321 (Tex.

App.—Waco Mar. 1, 2023, no pet. h.). At that time, we did not know that there was also

a pending motion to allow him to represent himself. The delay in ruling on the motion

for self-representation is thus affecting Stallworth’s ability to represent himself because

1
  Some would argue that requesting a specific ruling via a petition for a writ of mandamus by a pro se
inmate is also a procedural defect or irregularity. If it is, then TEX. R. APP. P. 44.3 would apply. I guess if
Stallworth files yet another mandamus petition merely to compel a ruling on his motion, maybe we will
learn why this petition is being denied.

In re Stallworth                                                                                       Page 2
he cannot get his pro se motions ruled upon.

        Accordingly, I would request a response to the petition for a writ of mandamus

from the respondent trial court and the real-party-in-interest, limited to the issue of why

the motion has not yet been ruled upon, so that the merits of the petition in that regard

may be considered by this Court.

                                          TOM GRAY
                                          Chief Justice

Dissenting Opinion delivered and filed May 17, 2023

In re Stallworth                                                                     Page 3