Whether the Constitution prevents a State from allowing a defendant to represent himself in a capital case when the defendant is mentally competent to waive counsel but is not mentally competent to conduct trial proceedings in his capital trial

QUESTIONS PRESENTED This case presents important issues concerning the right to counsel, the Eighth Amendment right to individualized sentencing in a capital case, and the fair administration of justice in Texas. Petitioner respectfully presents three issues for review, each of which warrants the involvement of this Court: 1. Whether the Constitution prevents a State from allowing a defendant to represent himself in a capital case when the defendant is mentally competent to waive counsel but is not mentally competent to conduct trial proceedings in his capital trial. 2. Whether the Eighth Amendment prohibits the State of Texas from sentencing Petitioner to death on a finding of future dangerousness based in substantial part on graphic testimony and evidence about an attack on a prison official committed by another inmate in another prison at another time, having no connection to Petitioner. 3. Whether the constitutional violation resulting from the trial court’s direction to administer a 50,000volt electric shock to Petitioner during his trial to “enforce decorum” because Petitioner failed to stand when responding to a question from the court constitutes structural error. ii STATEMENT OF RELATED CASES Texas Criminal Proceedings State v. Calvert, Cause No. 241-1467-12 (241st Jud. Dist., Smith Cnty., Tex. Oct. 14, 2015) (state trial court proceeding) Calvert v. State, AP-77,063 (Tex. Crim. App. Oct. 9, 2019) (Texas Court of Criminal Appeals decision on direct appeal) Calvert v. State, AP-77,063 (Tex. Crim. App. June 17, 2020) (order denying motion for rehearing)