IN THE
TENTH COURT OF APPEALS
No. 10-23-00107-CR
IN RE BRYAN STALLWORTH
Original Proceeding
From the 12th District Court
Walker County, Texas
Trial Court No. 30582
DISSENTING OPINION
According to the petition for a writ of mandamus, Stallworth is in jail pending
trial; and over six months ago, Stallworth filed a motion in which he sought to represent
himself in the trial court proceeding. The motion has not been ruled upon. Such a motion
does not violate the prohibition against hybrid representation. And if Stallworth desires
to represent himself in the pending criminal proceeding, any unreasonable delay in
ruling on the motion potentially prejudices Stallworth’s right to self-representation.
It is not apparent from the Court’s opinion why the petition is being denied. Is it
being denied because there is some procedural defect or irregularity, or because
Stallworth is not entitled to a ruling on the motion, or because he is asking the Court to
render a specific ruling 1? If it is the first of these reasons, we should not deny the petition,
at least not without giving notice and an opportunity to cure the procedural defect or
irregularity. TEX. R. APP. P. 44.3. If it is the latter reason, we frequently explain to litigants,
even those represented by counsel, that the petition for writ of mandamus is being denied
because we cannot issue the writ to compel the trial court to rule in a certain way. We do
not do that here. We can, however, issue a writ to compel the trial court to rule on a
motion that has been pending a sufficient length of time for the trial court to have
considered the motion.
We previously denied a petition for a writ of mandamus on the principle that
Stallworth is not entitled to hybrid representation; so, the trial court had no duty to rule
on his motion. See In re Stallworth, No. 10-23-00055-CR, 2023 Tex. App. LEXIS 1321 (Tex.
App.—Waco Mar. 1, 2023, no pet. h.). At that time, we did not know that there was also
a pending motion to allow him to represent himself. The delay in ruling on the motion
for self-representation is thus affecting Stallworth’s ability to represent himself because
1
Some would argue that requesting a specific ruling via a petition for a writ of mandamus by a pro se
inmate is also a procedural defect or irregularity. If it is, then TEX. R. APP. P. 44.3 would apply. I guess if
Stallworth files yet another mandamus petition merely to compel a ruling on his motion, maybe we will
learn why this petition is being denied.
In re Stallworth Page 2
he cannot get his pro se motions ruled upon.
Accordingly, I would request a response to the petition for a writ of mandamus
from the respondent trial court and the real-party-in-interest, limited to the issue of why
the motion has not yet been ruled upon, so that the merits of the petition in that regard
may be considered by this Court.
TOM GRAY
Chief Justice
Dissenting Opinion delivered and filed May 17, 2023
In re Stallworth Page 3