Carr, Donnie Dale, PD-0930-15

Donnie Carr was indicted for delivery/manufacture of methamphetamine, pleaded not guilty, tried in Smith County, and sentenced to life.
Carr repeatedly complained before trial that his appointed attorney was ineffective and that he lacked access to the jail law library needed to prepare a pro se defense.
Carr indicated a desire to proceed pro se; the trial court at one point granted self-representation and made appointed counsel standby, but Carr soon rescinded and proceeded with counsel at trial.
On appeal Carr argued the trial court constructively denied his Faretta right because it refused to secure law-library access while keeping standby/appointed counsel available.
The Twelfth Court of Appeals affirmed, reasoning that appointment of counsel (including standby counsel) provided the constitutionally required legal assistance and thus did not constructively deny self-representation.

Issue	Carr's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court constructively denied a defendant's Sixth Amendment right to self-representation by denying jail law-library access while counsel/standby counsel remained available	Carr: denial of library access while forced to rely on an attorney with whom he had a deteriorated relationship effectively extinguished his ability to represent himself	State: appointment/continuation of counsel (and standby counsel) provided constitutionally adequate assistance per Bounds/Bright; self-representation does not guarantee increased access to jail legal resources	Court of Appeals: affirmed conviction; held that counsel/standby counsel satisfied the access/assistance requirement and there was no constructive denial of Faretta rights

Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (recognizes Sixth Amendment right to self-representation)
Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817 (prisoners have right of access to courts via law libraries or legal assistance)
Bright v. State, 585 S.W.2d 739 (Tex. Crim. App. 1979) (appointed counsel/assistance can satisfy access requirements when defendant has counsel)
McKaskle v. Wiggins, 465 U.S. 168 (clarifies limits on standby counsel interference with pro se defendant)
Scarbrough v. State, 777 S.W.2d 83 (Tex. Crim. App. 1989) (standby counsel must not interfere with defendant's control over defense)