Anthony Yuma Duncan v. the State of Texas
This text of Anthony Yuma Duncan v. the State of Texas (Anthony Yuma Duncan 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 January 19, 2023
In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05-23-00041-CR
ANTHONY YUMA DUNCAN, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 203rd Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. F20-75167-P
ORDER
Before the Court is a letter filed January 12, 2023, from appellant’s
appointed counsel, Allan Fishburn, informing the Court that the trial court notified
him “that Appellant does not wish to be represented by Counsel and would be
proceeding pro-se.” Mr. Fishburn asks that we remove him as counsel of record.
Withdrawal from representation requires the filing of a motion to withdraw that
complies with Rule of Appellate Procedure 6.5. See TEX. R. APP. P. 6.5. Mr.
Fishburn’s letter does not comply with that rule. It appears appellant has demonstrated an intent to proceed pro se because on
January 10, 2023, appellant filed an amended notice of appeal stating he was “self-
represented.” Mr. Fishburn’s letter presents no grounds for permitting appellant to
proceed pro se, and appellant has made no motion with this Court to proceed pro
se. Accordingly, we DENY Mr. Fishburn’s request to withdraw from representing
appellant.
Appellant does not have a constitutional right to self-representation on
appeal. Martinez v. Ct. of Appeal of Cal., 528 U.S. 152, 163 (2000); Scheanette v.
State, 144 S.W.3d 503, 505 n.2 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004). However, appellate
courts have discretion to determine whether to permit an appellant to represent
himself on appeal. McCray v. State, No. 07-19-00430-CR, 2020 WL 994685, at *1
(Tex. App.—Amarillo Feb. 27, 2020, no pet.). Our exercise of that discretion
depends on a case-by-case analysis of the best interest of the appellant, the State,
and the administration of justice. Id.
To assist us in that determination, we ORDER the trial court to conduct a
hearing to determine:
1. whether appellant still desires to prosecute the appeal; 2. whether appellant is indigent and entitled to the appointment of appellate counsel; 3. whether appellant desires to represent himself on appeal; 4. if appellant desires to represent himself, whether his decision to do so is competently and intelligently made, including whether he is aware of the dangers and disadvantages of self-representation on appeal; and
5. if appellant desires to represent himself, whether allowing him to do so is in his best interest, in the best interest of the State, and in furtherance of the proper administration of justice.
If the trial court determines appellant is entitled to appointed counsel and that
allowing appellant to represent himself on appeal is not in his best interest, in the
best interest of the State, and in furtherance of the proper administration of justice,
the trial court is ORDERED to take such measures as may be necessary to assure
effective representation, which may include appointment of new counsel. If the
trial court cannot obtain appellant’s presence at the hearing, the trial court shall
conduct the hearing in appellant’s absence. See Meza v. State, 742 S.W.2d 708
(Tex. App.–Corpus Christi 1987, no pet.) (per curiam).
We ORDER the trial court to transmit a record of the proceedings, which
shall include written findings and recommendations, to this Court within THIRTY
DAYS of the date of this order.
The clerk’s record and the reporter’s record are due FEBRUARY 12, 2023.
We DIRECT the Clerk to send copies of this order to the Honorable Raquel
Rocky Jones, 203rd Judicial District Court; Felicia Pitre, Dallas County District
Clerk; Lisabeth Kellett, Court Reporter; Allan Fishburn; the appellate division of the Dallas County District Attorney; and Anthony Duncan, 1017 Paintbrush St.,
Mesquite, TX 75149.
This appeal is ABATED to allow the trial court to comply with the above
order. The appeal shall be reinstated when the record of the proceedings
containing the trial court’s findings is transmitted to this Court or when the Court
finds it appropriate to do so.
/s/ DENNISE GARCIA JUSTICE
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Anthony Yuma Duncan v. the State of Texas, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/anthony-yuma-duncan-v-the-state-of-texas-texapp-2023.