Enriquez v. State
| Decision Date | 01 September 1999 |
| Docket Number | No. 10-99-155-CR,10-99-155-CR |
| Parties | (Tex.App.-Waco 1999) JOSE SILVINO ENRIQUEZ, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Before Chief Justice Davis, Justice Vance, and Justice Gray
O R D E R
Appellant Jose Silvino Enriquez was convicted on three counts of aggravated sexual assault. The trial judge found the use of a deadly weapon in the commission of those offenses. Enriquez filed a notice of appeal and motion for new trial on May 18, 1999, through his trial attorney, Ricardo De Los Santos. Another motion for new trial was filed on behalf of Enriquez on May 21, 1999, by another attorney, Wes Dauphinot.
On August 5, 1999, we received a Notice of Substitution of Counsel and Designation of Lead Counsel. The trial court's docket sheet reveals that De Los Santos represented Enriquez during his trial and was appointed to represent Enriquez for his appeal. According to the notice of substitution, Enriquez now wants De Los Santos to withdraw as counsel and wants Francisco Hernandez and Wes Dauphinot to pursue his appeal. The notice was signed by Dauphinot, Hernandez and De Los Santos.
We construe this notice as a motion to withdraw and substitute as counsel. See TEX. R. APP. P. 6.5. We deny the motion.
It is clear that the legislature has given the trial court the responsibility for counsel appointed to represent indigent defendants in criminal proceedings. TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 26.04(a) (Vernon 1989). Equally clear is the authority of the trial court to relieve appointed counsel of his duties or replace him with other counsel. Id. The text of the statute is as follows:
(a) Whenever the court determines that a defendant charged with a felony or a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment is indigent or that the interests of justice require representation of a defendant in a criminal proceeding, the court shall appoint one or more practicing attorneys to defend him. An attorney appointed under this subsection 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. There is no limitation on the time frame during which the trial court has authority to make the appointment or substitution of counsel. Thus, article 26.04(a) provides a statutory exception to appellate rule 25.2(e) which provides that the trial court normally loses jurisdiction over a pending matter when the appellate record has been filed, as it has been in this case. TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(e). The only limitation is that the change in counsel not prejudice the rights of the defendant. See Stearnes v. Clinton, 780 S.W.2d 216 (Tex. Crim. App. 1989) (); see also In re Behee, 987 S.W.2d 903 (Tex. App.-Waco 1999, orig. proceeding) (where trial court removed appointed couns...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Guerrero v. State
...As noted by the majority we have determined that we do not have the authority to grant counsel's motion to withdraw. Enriquez v. State, 999 S.W.2d 906, 908 (Tex. App.—Waco 1999, order, no pet.). We have applied this holding in the context of Anders. Sowels v. State, 45 S.W.3d 690, 692 (Tex.......
-
In re E.L.Y.
...March 2001 when we concluded that such motions must be filed with the trial court. See Sowels, 45 S.W.3d at 692-93 (citing Enriquez v. State, 999 S.W.2d 906, 907-08 (Tex.App.-Waco 1999, order, no In Enriquez, this Court determined that a trial court retains jurisdiction during the pendency ......
-
Flores v. State, No. 13-03-334-CR (TX 12/1/2005)
...Id. Under this statute, the trial court retains responsibility for relieving an appointed attorney of his duties.See id.; Enriquez v. State, 999 S.W.2d 906, 908 (Tex. App.-Waco 1999, no pet.). Similarly, the trial court retains the responsibility for appointing new counsel to represent an i......
-
Taylor v. State
...an exception to the jurisdictional bar now found in Rule 25.2(g). Article 26.04 has now been considered an exception. See Enriquez v. State, 999 S.W.2d 906, 908 (Tex.App.-Waco 1999, no pet.). This not mean that bond and appointment of counsel are the only recognized exceptions. The procedur......
-
Right to Counsel and Effective Assistance of Counsel
...4-30 Under CCP Art. 26.04 substitution of counsel must be approved by the trial court even once the case is on appeal. Enriquez v. State, 999 S.W.2d 906 (Tex.App.—Waco 1999, no pet .). The trial court is under no duty to search for counsel until an attorney is found who is agreeable to the ......
-
Right to Counsel and Effective Assistance of Counsel
...Under CCP Art. 26.04 substitution of counsel must be approved by the trial court even once the case is on appeal. Enriquez v. State, 999 S.W.2d 906 (Tex.App.—Waco 1999, no pet .). The trial court is under no duty to search for counsel until an attorney is found who is agreeable to the accus......
-
Right to Counsel and Effective Assistance of Counsel
...Under CCP Art. 26.04 substitution of counsel must be approved by the trial court even once the case is on appeal. Enriquez v. State, 999 S.W.2d 906 (Tex.App.—Waco 1999, no The trial court is under no duty to search for counsel until an attorney is found who is agreeable to the accused. Stea......
-
Right to Counsel and Effective Assistance of Counsel
...Under CCP Art. 26.04 substitution of counsel must be approved by the trial court even once the case is on appeal. Enriquez v. State, 999 S.W.2d 906 (Tex.App.—Waco 1999, no pet .). The trial court is under no duty to search for counsel until an attorney is found who is agreeable to the accus......