Marc Allen Mason v. State, 07-14-00345-CR

Marc Allen Mason was convicted by a jury of burglary of a building (state jail felony) and, after habitual‑offender enhancement, was sentenced to 17 years and a $5,000 fine.
Court‑appointed counsel filed an appellate brief raising two issues: (1) alleged violation of Mason’s right to a speedy trial, and (2) trial court’s failure to stay proceedings pending resolution of competency.
Two weeks before oral argument Mason filed a pro se brief raising two additional matters (Due Process/Equal Protection challenge to habitual‑offender allegations; claimed “audio implant” and related ‘‘legal disability’’) and requested hybrid representation (counsel plus pro se filings).
The appellate court notified Mason that hybrid representation is not permitted on appeal and that, while represented by counsel, his pro se filings would not be considered. Mason objected and asked the court to consider his pro se submissions.
The court reviewed controlling authority on self‑representation and hybrid representation on appeal and concluded Mason had not clearly asserted a right to self‑representation and is not entitled to hybrid representation; pro se filings submitted while represented by counsel are disregarded.

Issue	Mason's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Whether Mason is entitled to hybrid representation on direct appeal (court should consider pro se filings while he is represented)	Mason argued his constitutional and state rights allow him to file pro se briefs in addition to counsel’s brief and asked the court to consider those filings	Court/State relied on precedent that there is no right to hybrid representation on appeal and that pro se filings filed while represented are disregarded	Overruled Mason’s objection; pro se filings will not be considered while he is represented by counsel
Whether Mason has a constitutional right to self‑representation on direct appeal	Mason sought to assert arguments pro se and effectively self‑represent on appeal	Court pointed to precedent that self‑representation on direct appeal is not constitutionally required	Held no constitutional right to self‑representation on direct appeal; appellant did not clearly and unequivocally assert such a right and hybrid representation is not allowed on appeal

Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (1975) (recognizing defendant’s right to self‑representation at trial when clearly and unequivocally asserted)
Martinez v. Court of Appeal of California, Fourth Appellate Dist., 528 U.S. 152 (2000) (no constitutional right to self‑representation on direct appeal)
Landers v. State, 550 S.W.2d 272 (Tex. Crim. App. 1977) (describing hybrid representation and rejecting absolute right to it)
Hawthorn v. State, 848 S.W.2d 101 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992) (trial courts may allow hybrid representation in discretion if no inherent conflict)
Robinson v. State, 240 S.W.3d 919 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (pro se filings generally disregarded when defendant is represented)
Ex parte Bohannan, 350 S.W.3d 116 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (noting pro se documents filed while represented by counsel will be disregarded)