In the Matter of Kennitra M. Foote v. the State of Texas

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• noting that there is no constitutional right to hybrid representation and pro se briefs filed by appellants in criminal cases while represented will not be considered
• finding Ake satisfied when trial court offered indigent defendant the “opportunity to be examined by a neutral court-appointed psychiatrist”
• rejecting an appellant’s assertion that violent offenses committed after the murder for which he was being sentenced could not be used to establish a significant history of prior violent offenses for purposes of subsection (d)(9
• rejecting an appellant's assertion that violent offenses committed after the murder for which he was being sentenced could not be used to establish a significant history of prior violent offenses for purposes of subsection (d)(9
• explaining that hybrid representation is not permissible
• explaining that hybrid representation is not permitted

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).