From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Emmons v. State

Court of Appeals of Texas, Eleventh District
Jul 25, 2024
No. 11-23-00279-CR (Tex. App. Jul. 25, 2024)

Opinion

11-23-00279-CR

07-25-2024

STEVEN AUDIS EMMONS, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee


Do not publish. See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).

On Appeal from the 104th District Court Taylor County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 22761-B

Panel consists of: Bailey, C.J., Trotter, J., and Williams, J.

ORDER

PER CURIAM

This appeal stems from the trial court's judgment revoking Appellant's community supervision. Appellant, Steven Audis Emmons, is currently represented by a court-appointed attorney in this appeal. Appellant has sent numerous motions and documents to this court expressing dissatisfaction with his attorney's representation on appeal; in his most recent letter to this court, he includes a request to, perhaps, proceed pro se on appeal. We abate this appeal.

We first point out that a defendant is not entitled to his personal choice of appointed counsel. Thomas v. State, 550 S.W.2d 64, 68 (Tex. Crim. App. 1977). Furthermore, a trial court has no duty to search for counsel that is agreeable to the defendant. King v. State, 29 S.W.3d 556, 566 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000). Second, we note that this court has no authority to appoint counsel.

Because Appellant has indicated that he intends to proceed pro se, rather than be represented by his court-appointed attorney, we must abate the appeal and remand the cause to the trial court so that the trial court may conduct a hearing and consider (1) Appellant's desire to proceed pro se and (2) the appointment of his counsel for this appeal. If the trial court determines during the hearing that Appellant wishes to proceed pro se, it must determine whether, after being warned and admonished of the dangers and disadvantages of self-representation, Appellant competently and intelligently chooses to exercise his right to represent himself. In this regard, if it is determined that Appellant remains indigent and is exercising his right to represent himself, the trial court must develop evidence as to whether Appellant's decision to proceed without counsel is knowingly and intelligently made. See Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806, 835 (1975); Ex parte Davis, 818 S.W.2d 64, 66-67 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991); Hubbard v. State, 739 S.W.2d 341, 345 (Tex. Crim. App. 1987); Webb v. State, 533 S.W.2d 780, 783-86 (Tex. Crim. App. 1976). We note that Appellant need not appear in person at the hearing and that the trial court may permit him to appear via telephone or by other electronic means. The trial court is directed to enter findings of fact and conclusions of law and to make any appropriate recommendations to this court on the matters addressed above.

The clerk of the trial court is directed to prepare and forward to this court a clerk's record containing the findings, recommendations, and any orders of the trial court. The court reporter is directed to prepare and forward to this court the reporter's record from the hearing. These records are due to be filed in this court on or before September 23, 2024.

The appeal is abated.


Summaries of

Emmons v. State

Court of Appeals of Texas, Eleventh District
Jul 25, 2024
No. 11-23-00279-CR (Tex. App. Jul. 25, 2024)
Case details for

Emmons v. State

Case Details

Full title:STEVEN AUDIS EMMONS, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

Court:Court of Appeals of Texas, Eleventh District

Date published: Jul 25, 2024

Citations

No. 11-23-00279-CR (Tex. App. Jul. 25, 2024)