Self-representation on appeal

1. Ahead of filing any appellate brief in the Court of Appeals of Texas, Fourteenth District, Houston, appointed appellate counsel, Kenneth Nash and indigent appellant Russell Lee Laird had met an impasse regarding issues to be argued on appeal. Subsequently, they filed a “ Motion to Appoint New Counsel or Proceed Pro Se ” . Having been civilly committed at trial, as a “ sexually violent predator ” with tremendous liberty interests at stake, should Petitioner Laird have been allowed to proceed Pro Se in the Court of Appeals, when counsel failed to render effective assistance, insisting upon arguing only one issue that has been repeatedly argued in the courts to no avail, while also refusing to take up relevant, non-frivolous issues that Laird identified, being preserved from trial? 2. Did the Court of Appeals of Texas, Fourteenth District, Houston, violate Petitioner, Laird ’ s United States Constitutional, Fourteenth Amendment, procedural due process rights by failing to provide any means to review all of the issues that Laird sought for review in the Court of Appeals? 3. Did the Court of Appeals violate Petitioner, Laird ’ s United States Constitutional, Fourteenth Amendment, procedural due process rights by denying “ Motion to Appoint New Counsel ” , allowing Nash to proceed representing Laird, knowing that Nash and Laird had met an impasse, wherein Nash failed to render effective assistance, refusing to argue all of the non-frivolous, relevant issues that were preserved from Laird ’ s “ civil commitment ” trial?