From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Stanton v. State

COURT OF APPEALS EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS EL PASO, TEXAS
Jun 20, 2013
No. 08-12-00293-CR (Tex. App. Jun. 20, 2013)

Opinion

No. 08-12-00293-CR

06-20-2013

LUKE STANTON, Appellant, v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, State.


Appeal from the


211th District Court


of Denton County, Texas


(TC# F-2011-1911-C)


ORDER

Pending before the Court is Appellant's motion to represent himself on appeal. Appellant's court-appointed attorney filed a brief on Appellant's behalf on December 14, 2012 and the State filed its brief on February 11, 2013. The case is therefore at issue and awaiting a submission date. The Court received Appellant's motion to remove his attorney and proceed pro se on June 6, 2013. The basis for the motion is that appointed counsel allegedly would not comply with Appellant's requests to file an out-of-time motion for new trial or raise certain issues on appeal.

We review a request for self-representation in a criminal appeal on a case-by-case basis. An appellant cannot use his desire for self-representation as a means of manipulating or obstructing the orderly procedure of the court or interfering with the fair administration of justice. Marion v. State, 936 S.W.2d 5, 6 (Tex.App.--El Paso 1996, order); Martinez v. State, 163 S.W.3d 88, 90 (Tex.App.—Amarillo 2006, order). It also cannot be used as a tactic to delay the orderly procedure of the courts. Marion, 936 S.W.2d at 6. If an indigent appellant is dissatisfied with appointed counsel, it must be brought to the court's attention in a timely manner. Hubbard v. State, 739 S.W.2d 341, 344 (Tex.Crim.App. 1987); Marion, 936 S.W.2d at 6.

Appellant has filed his motion to proceed pro se almost six months after appointed counsel filed the brief in this case on behalf of Appellant and four months after the State filed its reply. We conclude that Appellant has not made his request to represent himself on appeal in a timely manner and the granting of this motion would interfere with and obstruct the orderly procedure of this Court. Accordingly, Appellant's motion to remove his attorney and represent himself on appeal is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 20TH DAY OF JUNE, 2013.

PER CURIAM Before McClure, C.J., Rivera and Rodriguez, JJ.


Summaries of

Stanton v. State

COURT OF APPEALS EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS EL PASO, TEXAS
Jun 20, 2013
No. 08-12-00293-CR (Tex. App. Jun. 20, 2013)
Case details for

Stanton v. State

Case Details

Full title:LUKE STANTON, Appellant, v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, State.

Court:COURT OF APPEALS EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS EL PASO, TEXAS

Date published: Jun 20, 2013

Citations

No. 08-12-00293-CR (Tex. App. Jun. 20, 2013)