Darren Latodd Houston v. the State of Texas
This text of Darren Latodd Houston v. the State of Texas (Darren Latodd Houston 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
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN
NO. 03-23-00082-CR
Darren Latodd Houston, Appellant
v.
The State of Texas, Appellee
FROM THE 155TH DISTRICT COURT OF FAYETTE COUNTY NO. 2020R-154, THE HONORABLE JAMES H. SHOEMAKE, JUDGE PRESIDING
ORDER AND MEMORANDUM OPINION
PER CURIAM
Appellant Darren Latodd Houston is currently represented on appeal by appointed
counsel. On October 3, 2023, counsel attempted to file a “Motion for Extension of Time to File
Brief,” in which he requested that we order him withdrawn and allow appellant to represent
himself. 1 On November 17, 2023, the Court received a letter from appellant confirming that he
wishes to proceed pro se and asking that we order counsel to file a motion to withdraw.
We therefore abate this appeal and remand the cause to the trial court to conduct a
hearing and determine whether: (1) appellant desires to prosecute his appeal; (2) appellant
wishes to discharge his appointed attorney and proceed with his appeal pro se; (3) the waiver of
1 We rejected the filing because it was not in compliance with Rule of Appellate Procedure 6.5. See Tex. R. App. P. 6.5. As of the date of this order, counsel has not filed a corrected motion. assistance of counsel is made voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently; (4) appellant’s decision
to proceed pro se is in the best interest of appellant and of the State; and (5) appellant is fully
aware of the dangers and disadvantages of self-representation. See Tex. R. App. P. 43.6
(permitting courts of appeals to make “any other appropriate order that the law and the nature of
the case require”); Williams v. State, 252 S.W.3d 353, 356 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008); Funderburg
v. State, 717 S.W.2d 637, 641–42 (Tex. Crim. App. 1986); Thompson v. State, 525 S.W.3d 744,
744 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2017, pet. ref’d) (order) (per curiam). If the trial court
determines that appellant has made a voluntary, knowing, and intelligent decision to waive his
right to counsel on appeal and to represent himself, it shall revoke its order appointing appellate
counsel for appellant.
The court is also ordered to prepare a supplemental reporter’s record of the
hearing as well as a supplemental clerk’s record including all appropriate orders, findings of
facts, and conclusions of law. See Tex. R. App. P. 34.5(c)(2), .6(d). The records shall be filed
with this Court no later than January 12, 2024.
It is ordered on December 1, 2023.
Before Chief Justice Byrne, Justices Kelly and Theofanis
Abated and Remanded
Filed: December 1, 2023
Do Not Publish
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Darren Latodd Houston v. the State of Texas, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/darren-latodd-houston-v-the-state-of-texas-texapp-2023.