The federal right to self-representation requires that a defendant who is competent to be tried for a crime be permitted to proceed pro se if that is the defendant's choice. The Court of Appeals erred in effectively holding that Indiana v. Edwards overruled Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (1975) and its progeny; and in holding that a finding that Mr. Chadwick was not competent to represent himself could be inferred from the record in the absence of any findings by the trial court in that regard and in the absence of any evidence in the record to support those implied findings.Here, Chadwick had been transported over from the local jail to see the judge on an unrelated case. He was restrained by a chain that circled his arms and chest, limiting the mobility of his arms, and by handcuffs. When he found out that he wasn't going to see the judge, he was very dubitante. He demonstrated his strong negative feelings about this situation by saying "You better get some backup because I'm going to see the judge, Jerry." He then lunged at the Deputy Sheriff, pinning him against the wall, and grabbing for the officer's gun. The deputy also felt Chadwick kicking the deputy several times in the leg. The deputy managed to get the attention of a nearby bailiff who helped break up the fight.
Chadwick tried to represent himself on the assault on a public servant and attempting to take a weapon from a police officer because self-representation is always such a good idea, particularly for someone accused of assaulting an officer while in jail. Chadwick argued that he was competent to stand trial, so he was competent to represent himself. Understandibly, the trial court was dubitante about this set of circumstances. Moreover, he had observed Chadwick make several incoherent motions that his appointed counsel did not adopt in previous settings, such as "I'm trying to bring together the thought, Judge, that his misconduct will need to be questioned in the grand jury matters and in many matters, so it's--it's relevant to him. It's just bringing up different topics required to show multiple areas and collateral consequences from him and repetition of it reoccurring repeatedly." The court of appeals held that the trial court could have reasonably determined that Chadwick was not competent to represent himself under Indiana v. Edwards. Here's a link to the underlying court of appeals case info and the CCA case info.
[While I can see the CCA taking the opportunity to set out how Indiana v. Edwards should play out in Texas, I am dubitante that it will change the outcome. However, I'm not entirely sure what dubitante means, so perhaps my dubitante position is deserving of some dubitante action itself. After all, the trial court and the court of appeals focus on Chadwick's lack of trial skills, not whether or not he had a severe mental illness, which seemed to be the touchstone in Indiana v. Edwards. And here's a paper on pro se competence after Indiana v. Edwards, just for fun.]
