Michael Shawn Sadler v. State
10-15-00136-CR
| Tex. App. | Dec 17, 2015Background
- Michael Shawn Sadler, through appointed counsel, appealed denial of his post-conviction DNA testing motion under Texas Code of Criminal Procedure Chapter 64. The Court of Appeals affirmed.
- Sadler, without his appointed counsel, filed a pro se motion for extension of time to file a motion for rehearing after the appellate judgment.
- The court faced the question whether it may consider a pro se motion for rehearing (or for extension) filed by an appellant represented by appointed counsel.
- The court considered concerns about hybrid representation and the need for a Faretta colloquy but distinguished this situation from Anders appeals.
- The court adopted a narrow rule: when it is reasonably clear from the record that appointed counsel will not file a motion for rehearing, the court may consider a timely pro se motion by the appellant.
- Applying that rule, the court inferred counsel elected not to file a rehearing motion and granted Sadler an extension; Sadler’s rehearing motion was due February 11, 2016.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court may consider a pro se motion for rehearing filed while counsel remains appointed | Sadler sought leave to file pro se extension; implicitly argued court should consider it | State argued consideration may implicate hybrid-representation and Faretta concerns | Court may consider pro se motion when record reasonably shows appointed counsel will not file a rehearing motion |
| Whether consideration of a pro se rehearing motion violates prohibition on hybrid representation | Sadler implicitly contended prohibition shouldn't block review when counsel declines to act | State (and authorities) raised hybrid-representation concerns and right to counsel issues | Court held no per se violation if it is clear counsel will not file the motion |
| Whether a Faretta waiver/colloquy is required before accepting pro se filings from represented appellant | Sadler did not request a Faretta colloquy; sought extension | State suggested Faretta concerns could arise when a represented defendant proceeds pro se | Court held Faretta is not required here where counsel has effectively chosen not to file; no hybrid representation problem |
| Whether Sadler’s requested extension was properly computed and should be granted | Sadler requested 45 days (excluding weekends/holidays) | Court noted Rule 4.1 includes weekends/holidays, making request a 66-day extension; nevertheless granted extension to requested date | Court granted extension and set new due date (Feb 11, 2016) and warned of jurisdictional consequences if not timely filed |
Key Cases Cited
- Ex parte Taylor, 36 S.W.3d 883 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001) (addresses prohibition on hybrid representation)
- Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (1975) (right to self-representation requires knowing and intelligent waiver of counsel)
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) (framework for counsel filing Anders brief when appellate counsel believes appeal is frivolous)
- Scott v. State, 301 S.W.3d 700 (Tex. App.—Waco 2009) (held court may rule on pro se motion for rehearing in Anders context)