in Re Phillip Jerome Simmons ( 2022 )

In The
Court of Appeals
Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont
__________________
NO. 09-21-00410-CR
__________________
IN RE PHILLIP JEROME SIMMONS
__________________________________________________________________
Original Proceeding
75th District Court of Liberty County, Texas
Trial Cause No. CR35130
__________________________________________________________________
MEMORANDUM OPINION
In a petition for a writ of mandamus, Phillip Jerome Simmons complains that
the trial court has failed to rule on several motions Simmons filed on a pro se basis
in a criminal case. In the petition, Simmons represents he has the benefit of trial
counsel in Trial Cause Number CR35130, which is the case where he filed the
motions that he is complaining the trial court has not ruled on or conducted hearings
on here.
According to Simmons, he filed a pro se motion but wants to both have an
attorney while also representing himself in the motions at issue here. For three
1
reasons, we conclude his petition should be dismissed. First, Simmons has not
claimed or established that the Sixth Amendment provides him with the right to
hybrid representation.1 Second, the Court of Criminal Appeals has held defendants
have no right to hybrid representation. For that reason, he has not shown an abuse of
discretion occurred based on his claim the trial court has not ruled on his pro se
motions in Trial Cause Number CR35130.2 Third, Simmons has not shown that a
regular appeal would be inadequate to remedy all complaints that have any arguable
merit under the law. 3 We conclude that Simmons has not shown he is entitled to a
ruling granting his petition.4
Accordingly, the petition is denied. 5
PETITION DENIED.
PER CURIAM
Submitted on January 11, 2022
Opinion Delivered January 12, 2022
Do Not Publish
Before Golemon, C.J., Horton and Johnson, JJ.
1See Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806, 835 (1975); see also McKaskle v.
Wiggins, 465 U.S. 168, 183 (1984) (“Faretta does not require a trial judge to permit
‘hybrid’ representation[.]”).
2Robinson v. State, 240 S.W.3d 919, 922 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007).
3See, e.g., Johnson v. State, 760 S.W.2d 277, 278-79 (Tex. Crim. App. 1988)
(considering appellate challenge to the denial of the right of self-representation at
trial).
4See In re McCann, 422 S.W.3d 701, 704 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (the merits
of the relief sought in a mandamus petition must be beyond dispute).
5Tex. R. App. P. 52.8(d).
2