Willie McDowell v. State
01-15-00483-CR
| Tex. App. | Dec 8, 2015Background
- Appellant Willie McDowell filed a notice (Sept. 13, 2015) seeking to represent himself on appeal.
- The court abated the appeal for a Farretta-type hearing to determine whether the waiver of counsel would be knowing, voluntary, and in the best interests of the appellant, the State, and the administration of justice.
- At the hearing McDowell stated he has a G.E.D., no college or legal training, and wanted to self-represent to learn the appellate process and prepare potential PDR or art. 11.07 habeas filings.
- The trial court found McDowell did not understand the pitfalls of pro se appellate representation and that self-representation would not be in his best interests, nor in the State’s or justice system’s interest; the court ordered new appellate counsel appointed.
- This court reinstated the appeal after appointed counsel moved for reinstatement; the court denied McDowell’s request to proceed pro se and denied his separate notice attempting to appeal the Farretta hearing as moot.
- The appellant was directed to notify the court within 20 days whether he will file a brief.
Issues
| Issue | McDowell's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether appellant may proceed pro se on appeal | McDowell: he wishes to self-represent to learn appellate practice and to prepare PDR / art. 11.07 petitions | State: no right to self-representation on appeal; allowing pro se would harm fair, efficient administration of justice | Denied — court found waiver not in appellant’s, State’s, or justice system’s best interests; appointed counsel remains in place |
| Whether the Farretta-hearing ruling is appealable | McDowell: seeks to appeal the trial court’s finding that self-representation on appeal is not in his best interest | State: moot because the court denied the request to proceed pro se | Denied as moot |
Key Cases Cited
- Buntion v. Harmon, 827 S.W.2d 945 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992) (recognizes right to counsel on direct appeal)
- Scheanette v. State, 144 S.W.3d 503 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004) (no absolute right to self-representation on appeal)
- Crawford v. State, 136 S.W.3d 417 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 2004) (order) (self-representation on appeal evaluated case-by-case)
- Cormier v. State, 85 S.W.3d 496 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2002) (order) (court considers best interests of appellant, State, and administration of justice)
- Hadnot v. State, 14 S.W.3d 348 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2000) (order) (similar precedent refusing self-representation on appeal)