Background
Carlos Arturo Gomez German filed a pro se notice of appeal from the denial of his motion for reconsideration of the trial court’s order denying his application for a writ of habeas corpus. The appeal came from the 368th District Court of Williamson County in cause numbers 25-1952-K368 and 26-0117-K368, with Judge Sarah Soeldner Bruchmiller presiding. The court of appeals cited Texas Code of Criminal Procedure articles 11.08 and 11.151 in describing the proceeding.
The trial court liberally construed Gomez German’s reconsideration motion as an amended habeas application, and the court of appeals did the same. It relied on article 11.04’s direction that provisions relating to habeas corpus be construed most favorably to give effect to the remedy and protect the rights of the person seeking relief.
The appellate court identified two record problems. First, the clerk’s record lacked the required certification concerning the trial court’s October 14, 2026 order denying the amended application. Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 25.2(a)(2) requires a certification of the defendant’s right of appeal each time the trial court enters a judgment of guilt or other appealable order, and Rule 25.2(d) requires the record to include that certification. The court also cited Ex parte Chapa, No. 03-18-00104-CR, 2018 WL 3999741, at *2 n.2 (Tex. App.—Austin Aug. 22, 2018, pet. ref’d) (mem. op., not designated for publication), for the proposition that denial of a pretrial habeas application is an appealable order. Second, the record did not make clear whether Gomez German was represented by counsel, either for this appeal or more generally in the trial court.
The Court’s Holding
The per curiam court did not decide the merits of the habeas application. It abated the appeal and remanded the cause for the trial court to enter a certification of Gomez German’s right of appeal from the October 14 order denying habeas relief. The court cited Rules 25.2(a)(2) and 44.4. It also directed the trial court to make findings on whether Gomez German is currently represented in the trial court and on appeal and, if so, whether the trial court has permitted hybrid representation.
The court explained that a criminal defendant has no absolute right to hybrid representation or to represent himself on direct appeal, citing Robinson v. State, 240 S.W.3d 919, 922 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007), and Scheanette v. State, 144 S.W.3d 503, 505 n.2 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004). It also cited intermediate-appellate decisions stating that pro se filings may present nothing for review when an appellant has counsel. But the court emphasized the other side of that principle as well: a trial court may permit hybrid representation in its discretion, citing Scarbrough v. State, 777 S.W.2d 83, 92 (Tex. Crim. App. 1989). Its citation to Landers v. State, 550 S.W.2d 272, 280 (Tex. Crim. App. 1977), noted concerns that hybrid representation may distort the lawyer-client relationship and create potential courtroom chaos.
The representation history made clarification necessary. The trial court appointed Travis McDonald in November 2025 and Leonard Morgan as co-counsel in February 2026. Gomez German then retained Jason Katims, who was substituted for McDonald the following month. That same month, the court granted Katims’s motion to withdraw and appointed Bradford Glendening, with Daniel Brown appointed as second chair. In April 2026, the court appointed David Crook to represent Gomez German for purposes of appeal and later permitted Glendening and Brown to withdraw. The record appeared to show that neither Morgan nor Crook had been substituted or had withdrawn.
The trial court must file a supplemental clerk’s record containing its certification and findings with the court of appeals no later than November 13, 2026, under Rule 34.5(c)(2). The order was issued October 30, 2026, before Justices Triana, Crump, and Ellis, and was marked “Do Not Publish.”
Key Takeaways
- The appeal was abated and remanded; the court did not adjudicate the underlying habeas claims.
- The trial court must supply the missing certification of the right to appeal the October 14, 2026 order.
- The trial court must also determine Gomez German’s current representation status and whether hybrid representation has been permitted.
- The supplemental clerk’s record is due November 13, 2026.
Why It Matters
The order illustrates how appellate review of a habeas denial can be delayed by threshold record defects rather than resolved on the merits. It also shows why a clear attorney-of-record history matters when a represented defendant files pro se: the court needs to know whether counsel remains responsible for the trial proceedings, the appeal, or both, and whether the trial court has exercised its discretion to allow hybrid representation.
The ruling is procedural and tied to this record. It does not establish that every pro se notice of appeal requires abatement, nor does it decide whether Gomez German may ultimately proceed without counsel or present arguments alongside counsel.