Ezequiel Alvarez v. State

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedOctober 26, 2017
Docket11-17-00282-CR
StatusPublished

This text of Ezequiel Alvarez v. State (Ezequiel Alvarez 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
Ezequiel Alvarez v. State, (Tex. Ct. App. 2017).

Opinion

Order filed October 26, 2017

In The

Eleventh Court of Appeals ___________

No. 11-17-00282-CR ___________

EZEQUIEL ALVAREZ, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 42nd District Court Taylor County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 26240A

ORDER Ezequiel Alvarez was represented by retained counsel, Sam Mehaffey, at trial. Alvarez filed a pro se notice of appeal and has also filed a request for the appointment of counsel. Alvarez asserts that he cannot afford an attorney. We abate this appeal. We remand the cause to the trial court so that it may determine the following: 1. Whether Alvarez desires to prosecute his appeal; 2. Whether Alvarez is indigent; 3. If not indigent, whether Alvarez has retained counsel for this appeal; and 4. If indigent, whether Alvarez desires to have counsel appointed to represent him in this appeal or whether, after being warned of the dangers and disadvantages of self-representation, Alvarez competently and intelligently chooses to exercise the right to represent himself.

If it is determined that Alvarez is indigent and desires to have counsel appointed, the trial court is directed to appoint counsel for this appeal. If it is determined that Alvarez is indigent and is exercising his right to represent himself, the trial court must develop evidence as to whether Alvarez’s decision to proceed without counsel is knowingly and intelligently made. See Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (1975); Ex parte Davis, 818 S.W.2d 64 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991); Hubbard v. State, 739 S.W.2d 341, 345 (Tex. Crim. App. 1987); Webb v. State, 533 S.W.2d 780, 783–86 (Tex. Crim. App. 1976). We note that Alvarez need not appear in person at the hearing and that the trial court may permit him to appear via telephone. The trial court is directed to enter findings of fact and conclusions of law, if necessary, and to make any appropriate recommendations to this court. The clerk of the trial court is directed to prepare and forward to this court a clerk’s record containing any findings, recommendations, or orders of the trial court. If a hearing is held, the court reporter is directed to prepare and forward to this court the reporter’s record from the hearing. The records are due to be filed in this court on or before November 27, 2017. The appeal is abated.

October 26, 2017 PER CURIAM Do not publish. See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b). Panel consists of: Wright, C.J., Willson, J., and Bailey, J.

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

Related

Faretta v. California
422 U.S. 806 (Supreme Court, 1975)
Ex Parte Davis
818 S.W.2d 64 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1991)
Webb v. State
533 S.W.2d 780 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1976)
Hubbard v. State
739 S.W.2d 341 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1987)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Ezequiel Alvarez v. State, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ezequiel-alvarez-v-state-texapp-2017.