Donnie Dale Carr v. State
12-14-00335-CR
Tex. App.Apr 9, 2015Background
- Appellant Donnie Carr was indicted for delivery/possession of a controlled substance; convicted by jury and sentenced to life; timely appealed.
- While detained, Carr repeatedly requested access to the county/jail law library to review discovery and prepare motions; jail allegedly refused access.
- Carr stated he wished to represent himself (pro se) but conditioned that choice on receiving access to legal materials.
- At hearings, the trial judge told Carr that choosing to proceed pro se did not guarantee access to law library materials and that jails are not legally required to provide law books.
- Carr declined to sign a waiver of counsel when told he would not have guaranteed law-library access, later briefly elected pro se but ultimately reappointed counsel; appellant argues the court’s comments and refusal to secure access constructively denied his Faretta right.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court constructively denied Carr's Sixth Amendment Faretta right by denying access to law library needed to proceed pro se | Carr: He timely and unequivocally asserted desire to proceed pro se but conditioned on law-library access; court told him no right to such access and effectively forced him to accept counsel | State/Trial court: No legally guaranteed right to jail law-library access; availability is a convenience, not a constitutional requirement to proceed pro se | Trial court informed Carr he had no right to law-library access; appellant contends this amounted to a constructive denial of Faretta and seeks reversal (appellate brief argues no harmless-error analysis applies) |
Key Cases Cited
- Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (1975) (criminal defendant has right to self-representation)
- McKaskle v. Wiggins, 465 U.S. 168 (1984) (limits on standby counsel when defendant proceeds pro se; waiver analysis)
- Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817 (1977) (prisoners must be afforded meaningful access to the courts via law libraries or legal assistance)
- Blankenship v. State, 673 S.W.2d 578 (Tex.Crim.App. 1984) (timely, unequivocal assertion required to invoke right to self-representation)
- Dunn v. State, 819 S.W.2d 510 (Tex.Crim.App. 1991) (discussing access-to-courts and related obligations)
- Birdwell v. State, 10 S.W.3d 74 (Tex.App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1999) (denial of proper pro se request not subject to harmless-error analysis)
- Scarbrough v. State, 777 S.W.2d 83 (Tex.Crim.App. 1989) (discussing right to self-representation)