Ex Parte: Ja'Bryant Keith Davis v. the State of Texas

NO. 12-24-00217-CR
NO. 12-24-00218-CR
NO. 12-24-00219-CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

EX PARTE: § APPEAL FROM THE 159TH

JA'BRYANT KEITH DAVIS § JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

§ ANGELINA COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORANDUM OPINION
PER CURIAM

Ja’Bryant Keith Davis filed a pro se notice of appeal to challenge the trial court’s denial
of his request for a bail reduction. Appellant acknowledges that he is represented by counsel in
the trial court.
A criminal defendant is not entitled to hybrid representation. Williams v. State, 642
S.W.3d 896, 898 n.6 (Tex. App.—Tyler 2021, no pet.) (citing Marshall v. State, 210 S.W.3d
618, 620 n.1 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006), Scheanette v. State, 144 S.W.3d 503, 505 n.2 (Tex. Crim.
App. 2004)). Nor does an appellant have a constitutional right to represent himself on direct
appeal. Scheanette, 144 S.W.3d at 505 n.2. Accordingly, because Appellant has court-appointed
counsel and is not entitled to hybrid representation, Appellant’s pro se notice of appeal presents
nothing for our review. See Ex parte Bohannan, 350 S.W.3d 116, n.1 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011)
(disregarding pro se submissions because habeas applicant was represented by counsel); see also
Patrick v. State, 906 S.W.2d 481, 498 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995) (because appellant not entitled to
hybrid representation, pro se supplemental brief presented nothing for review); Cantu v. State,
No. 03-24-00524-CR, 2024 WL 3892456, at *1 (Tex. App.—Austin Aug. 22, 2024, no pet. h.)
(mem. op., not designated for publication) (because appellant was represented by counsel in trial
court, his pro se notice of appeal presented nothing for review); In re Moore, No. 12-23-00322-
CR, 2024 WL 110311, at *1 (Tex. App.—Tyler Jan. 10, 2024, orig. proceeding) (per curiam)
(mem. op., not designated for publication) (absence of right to hybrid representation meant
relator’s pro se petition for writ of mandamus presented nothing for review); Grant v. State, No.
01-21-00340-CR, 2021 WL 4780066, at *2 n.2 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Oct. 14, 2021,
pet. ref’d) (per curiam) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (appeal dismissed for want of
jurisdiction, but also noting case must be dismissed where appellant not entitled to hybrid
representation and pro se appeal presented nothing for review). For this reason, we dismiss the
appeals.

Opinion delivered August 29, 2024.
Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., and Hoyle, J.

(DO NOT PUBLISH)

2
COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS

JUDGMENT

AUGUST 29, 2024

NO. 12-24-00217-CR

EX PARTE: JA'BRYANT KEITH DAVIS

Appeal from the 159th District Court
of Angelina County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. 2023-0256)

THIS CAUSE came on to be heard on the appellate record, and the same
being considered, it is the opinion of this Court that the appeal should be dismissed.
It is therefore ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED by this Court that
this appeal be, and the same is, hereby dismissed; and that this decision be certified to the court
below for observance.

By per curiam opinion.
Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., and Hoyle, J.
COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS

JUDGMENT

AUGUST 29, 2024

NO. 12-24-00218-CR

EX PARTE: JA'BRYANT KEITH DAVIS

Appeal from the 159th District Court
of Angelina County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. 2023-0257)

THIS CAUSE came on to be heard on the appellate record, and the same
being considered, it is the opinion of this Court that the appeal should be dismissed.
It is therefore ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED by this Court that
this appeal be, and the same is, hereby dismissed; and that this decision be certified to the court
below for observance.

By per curiam opinion.
Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., and Hoyle, J.
COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS

JUDGMENT

AUGUST 29, 2024

NO. 12-24-00219-CR

EX PARTE: JA'BRYANT KEITH DAVIS

Appeal from the 159th District Court
of Angelina County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. 2021-0809)

THIS CAUSE came on to be heard on the appellate record, and the same
being considered, it is the opinion of this Court that the appeal should be dismissed.
It is therefore ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED by this Court that
this appeal be, and the same is, hereby dismissed; and that this decision be certified to the court
below for observance.

By per curiam opinion.
Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., and Hoyle, J.