Michael David Byrum v. Texas

Ahead of filing any appellate brief in the Court of Appeals of Texas, Third District, Austin, appointed appellate counsel, Vikash M. Bhakta and indigent appellant Michael David Byrum had met an impasse regarding issues to be argued on appeal. Subsequently, they filed a “Motion to Withdraw” and an “Appellant’s Motion to Proceed Pro Se”, respectively. Having been civilly committed at trial, as a “sexually violent predator” with tremendous liberty interests at stake, should Petitioner Byrum have been allowed to proceed Pro Se in the Court of Appeals, when counsel failed to render effective assistance, insisting upon arguing only three issues that have been repeatedly argued in the courts to no avail, while also refusing to take up relevant, non-frivolous issues that Byrum identified, being preserved from trial?

In light the Court of Appeals of Texas decision, denying appointed counsel’s “Withdraw” and Petitioner Byrum’s “Pro Se” motions, disregarding the “impasse” between them, as noted therein, Byrum submitted an “Appellant’s Pro Se Supplemental Brief—that all issues and arguments, as preserved from trial, would be given consideration. Should the Court of Appeals of Texas hate “filed” and given review to both counsel’s “Brief for Appellant” and Byrum’s Pro Se brief?

Did the Court of Appeals fail to provide Byrum with procedural due process, when it failed to require appellate attorney Bhakta to file an Anders Brief with his Motion to Withdraw?

Did the Court of Appeals violate Petitioner, Byrum’s United States Constitutional, Fourteenth Amendment procedural due process rights by denying Byrum’s “Appellant’s Motion to Proceed Pro Se”, wherein Byrum would have been able to bring all of his preserved issues to the Court of Appeals for their review?