Andrew Cole Hamilton v. the State of Texas
This text of Andrew Cole Hamilton v. the State of Texas (Andrew Cole Hamilton v. the State of Texas) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
Order entered July 12, 2022
In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05-20-01119-CR No. 05-20-01120-CR No. 05-20-01121-CR No. 05-20-01122-CR No. 05-20-01123-CR No. 05-20-01124-CR No. 05-20-01125-CR
ANDREW COLE HAMILTON, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 296th Judicial District Court Collin County, Texas Trial Court Cause Nos. 296-81112-2020, 296-81113-2020, 296-81114-2020, 296-81659-2020, 296-81978-2020, 296-82339-2020, & 296-82340-2020
ORDER
Pending is a pro se motion filed by appellant on May 28, 2022, complaining
about the representation of his appointed appellate attorney and requesting her removal and replacement. Appellant claims he has not spoken to his attorney since
last year and that he has repeatedly tried to contact her via letters, emails and
telephone calls, but she has not responded. Appellant’s motion also alludes to two
errors allegedly made by the sentencing judge in this case that appellant asks us to
consider preserved; and it lists approximately thirteen things appellant says he
wants to discuss with his newly appointed counsel.
Our records show appellant’s attorney filed a brief raising two points of
error for this Court to review. A defendant does not have the right to his own
choice of appointed counsel. Thomas v. State, 550 S.W.2d 64, 68 (Tex. Crim.
App. 1977); King v. State, 29 S.W.3d 556, 566 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000). Vague
expressions of dissatisfaction with counsel, personality conflicts or disagreements
regarding strategy, and general allegations of communication breakdown and lack
of cooperation are insufficient to justify the replacement of appointed counsel.
E.g., King, 29 S.W.3d at 566; Calahan v. State, No. 05-09-01357-CR, 2011 WL
2465474, at *4 (Tex. App.—Dallas June 22, 2011, no pet.) (mem. op., not
designated for publication). Furthermore, an appellant is not entitled to dual or
“hybrid” representation. See Landers v. State, 550 S.W.2d 272, 278 (Tex. Crim.
App. 1977); Patrick v. State, 906 S.W.2d 481, 498 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995.
Appellant’s motion is, therefore, DENIED.
/s/ LANA MYERS JUSTICE
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Andrew Cole Hamilton v. the State of Texas, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/andrew-cole-hamilton-v-the-state-of-texas-texapp-2022.