Chad Stuart Jones v. State

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedJune 10, 2003
Docket07-03-00213-CR
StatusPublished

This text of Chad Stuart Jones v. State (Chad Stuart Jones v. State) 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.

Bluebook
Chad Stuart Jones v. State, (Tex. Ct. App. 2003).

Opinion

NO. 07-03-0213-CR


IN THE COURT OF APPEALS


FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS


AT AMARILLO


PANEL A


JUNE 10, 2003



______________________________


CHAD STUART JONES, APPELLANT


V.


THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE


_________________________________


FROM THE COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 2 OF MONTGOMERY COUNTY;


NO. 02-177738; HONORABLE JERRY WINFREE, JUDGE


_______________________________


Before JOHNSON, C.J., and REAVIS and CAMPBELL, JJ.

ABATEMENT AND REMAND

Following his conviction for driving while intoxicated, appellant Chad Stuart Jones perfected this appeal. Pending before this Court is trial counsel's motion to withdraw by which Joseph J. LaBella indicates he was retained to represent appellant during trial. He further contends appellant is now indigent and requests that this Court appoint counsel to represent him on appeal.

The trial court has the responsibility for appointing counsel to represent indigent defendants, as well as the authority to relieve or replace counsel. See Enriquez v. State, 999 S.W.2d 906, 907 (Tex.App.-Waco 1999, no pet.); see also Springer v. State, 940 S.W.2d 322, 323 (Tex.App.-Dallas 1997, no pet.). Therefore, we now abate the appeal and remand the cause to the trial court for further proceedings. Upon remand the trial court shall immediately cause notice to be given and, thereafter conduct a hearing to determine the following:

1. whether to grant Joseph J. LaBella's motion to withdraw;

2. whether appellant desires to prosecute this appeal; and, if so,

3. whether appellant is indigent and entitled to appointed counsel to prosecute this appeal.



The trial court shall cause the hearing to be transcribed. Should it be determined that appellant desires to continue the appeal, the trial court shall take such measures as may be necessary to assure appellant effective assistance of counsel, which measures may include the appointment of counsel. If counsel is appointed, the name, address, telephone number, and state bar number of said counsel shall be included in the order appointing counsel. Finally, the trial court shall execute findings of fact, conclusions of law, and such orders as the court may enter regarding the aforementioned issues, and cause its findings and conclusions to be included in a supplemental clerk's record. A supplemental record of the hearing shall also be included in the appellate record. Finally, the trial court shall file the supplemental clerk's record and the supplemental reporter's record with the Clerk of this Court by Friday, July 25, 2003.

It is so ordered.

Per Curiam



Do not publish.

t shall cause the supplemental records to be filed with the clerk of this court on or before February 26, 2007. Should additional time be needed to perform these tasks, the trial court may request same on or before February 26, 2007.



1. The court reporter has graciously offered to prepare the reporter's record upon a request from this Court. Without knowing whether appellant wishes to continue his appeal, we must decline the reporter's invitation.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Enriquez v. State
999 S.W.2d 906 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1999)
Springer v. State
940 S.W.2d 322 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1997)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Chad Stuart Jones v. State, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/chad-stuart-jones-v-state-texapp-2003.