Court Opinion

ID: 9800248
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 08:10:12.079073+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:42:05.288914
License: Public Domain

In The
                                 Court of Appeals
                        Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo

                                     No. 07-22-00301-CR
                                     No. 07-23-00019-CR

                               JOSE FALCON, APPELLANT

                                              V.

                            THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE

                          On Appeal from the 462nd District Court
                                   Denton County, Texas
Trial Court Nos. F21-3263-462 & F21-3264-462, Honorable Don Emerson, Sitting by Assignment

                                      August 29, 2023
           DISSENT TO ORDER OF ABATEMENT AND REMAND
                   Before QUINN, C.J., and DOSS and YARBROUGH, JJ.

       Remanding for the trial court to determine if appellate counsel’s performance has

been deficient, before any opinion has been issued, hinders judicial economy; I therefore

respectfully dissent.

       An appellant cannot use his desire for self-representation or any friction existing

between himself and appointed counsel 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.—Amarillo 2006, order) (disposition on merits at

163 S.W.3d 92 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2005, no pet.)).

       Criminal defendants are generally not entitled to hybrid representation and a “trial

court is free to disregard any pro se motions presented by a defendant who is represented

by counsel.” Robinson v. State, 240 S.W.3d 919, 922 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (emphasis

omitted). As such, “a trial court’s decision not to rule on a pro se motion” is not “subject

to review.”   Id. (emphasis omitted).       Similarly, Appellant is not entitled to hybrid

representation in this Court, and his pro se motion presents nothing for this Court to

review.   The nucleus of Appellant’s pro se motion—his attorney has failed to raise

significant points of error in his appellate brief. However, based on prior precedent, that

this Court has routinely followed, we should ignore Appellant’s pro se motion because he

is not entitled to hybrid representation.

       Appellant’s sub-issue, which the majority clings to, is a failure of communication

between Appellant and his counsel. We should not allow Appellant’s alleged friction with

his counsel to interfere with the fair administration of justice. Appellant’s appointed

counsel filed an appellate brief on May 11, 2023. The State has filed a responsive brief.

As of July 12, 2023, this case was ready to be set. Instead of setting the case and issuing

an opinion though, the majority is remanding the case to determine if Appellant’s

counsel’s performance has been deficient. However, without an opinion from this Court,

what is the trial court to do? What if this Court would grant Appellant’s requested relief

based on the brief currently on file? In that scenario, a remand is hindering judicial

economy. Without an opinion from this Court, is the trial court going to analyze its own

potential error when it evaluates Appellant’s potential briefing issues compared to those

                                              2
actually raised by his counsel? What If the trial court finds one of Appellant’s briefing

issues as non-frivolous? Would a higher court need to analyze the same issue? In other

words, if Appellant has issues with his counsel’s briefing, he will need to raise those in a

post-judgment collateral attack. By claiming judicial economy, and short circuiting the

process followed in prior cases, we are simply muddying the waters and hindering judicial

economy.

                                                        Alex Yarbrough
                                                            Justice

Do not publish.

                                             3