Behee, In re, 10-99-003-CR
Citation | 987 S.W.2d 903 |
Decision Date | 10 February 1999 |
Docket Number | No. 10-99-003-CR,10-99-003-CR |
Parties | In re Stephen Marty BEHEE. |
Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Phil Robertson, Robertson & Robertson, Clifton, for relator.
James E. Morgan, Judge, 220th District Court, Comanche, for respondent.
Before Chief Justice DAVIS, Justice VANCE, and Justice GRAY.
O P I N I O N
Relator Stephen Marty Behee seeks a writ of mandamus directing the Honorable James E. Morgan to vacate his order terminating appointed counsel in a criminal case. We conclude that Behee is entitled to the relief sought and conditionally grant the writ.
Behee was arrested August 11, 1998, on a charge of aggravated sexual assault. His bond was set at $50,000. On September 30, Behee filed an affidavit of indigency and requested an appointed attorney. On that day, Respondent entered an order appointing Tony Silas. The order tracked the statutory language of article 26.04(a) that the appointed attorney "shall represent the defendant until charges are dismissed, the defendant is acquitted, appeals are exhausted, or the attorney is relieved of his duties by the court or replaced by other counsel." Tex.Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 26.04(a) (Vernon 1989).
On October 8, Silas filed an application for writ of habeas corpus seeking reduction of Behee's bond. After a hearing on October 14, Respondent lowered the bond to $20,000. On November 10, Silas filed a second application for writ of habeas corpus seeking Behee's release under article 17.151 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Id. art. 17.151 (Vernon Supp.1999). Article 17.151 requires that the court release a defendant either on personal bond or by reducing the amount of bail if the State is not ready for trial within a prescribed time. Id. The second application alleged that Behee had been continuously held in jail for ninety days without being indicted or charged by information and that the State was not ready for trial.
After a hearing on November 20, Respondent granted Behee's application. The order authorized Behee's release upon executing a $5,000 bond and making a $750 cash deposit. Behee complied and was released from jail.
The grand jury indicted Behee on November 24 on two counts of aggravated sexual assault. On December 16, Behee and Silas appeared in court for the arraignment. Behee waived his arraignment. The following then occurred on the record:
...
....
Behee filed a petition for mandamus asking that Respondent be directed to vacate his order terminating Silas as his court-appointed counsel.
To be entitled to mandamus relief, Behee must establish that (1) he has no adequate remedy at law, and (2) that he has a clear right to relief. Buntion v. Harmon, 827 S.W.2d 945, 947 (Tex.Crim.App.1992).
Behee cites several cases for the proposition that mandamus is proper when a judge has improperly removed appointed counsel. See id.; Stearnes v. Clinton, 780 S.W.2d 216, 225 (Tex.Crim.App.1989); Stotts v. Wisser, 894 S.W.2d 366, 367 (Tex.Crim.App.1995) ( ).
Article 24.06 provides for the appointment of counsel for indigent defendants. TEX.CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 26.04 (Vernon 1989). When the court determines a defendant is indigent, the court "shall appoint" an attorney to defend him. Id. art. 26.04(a). An attorney so appointed "shall represent the defendant until charges are dismissed, the defendant is acquitted, appeals are exhausted, or the attorney is relieved of his duties by the court or replaced by other counsel." Id.
In determining whether a defendant is indigent, the court may consider many factors. Id. art. 26.04(b). The court may not, however,...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Enriquez v. State
...removed appointed counsel because he was uncooperative with and antagonistic toward the State, mandamus was granted); see also In re Behee, 987 S.W.2d 903 (Tex. App.-Waco 1999, orig. proceeding) (where trial court removed appointed counsel because the defendant posted bond, mandamus was con......