Goodman, III Roy v. State

Opinion

Opinion Issued June 5, 2003

In The

Court of Appeals

For The

First District of Texas

---

NO. 01-02-00499-CR

____________

ROY GOODMAN, III, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

---

On Appeal from the 337th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 760635

---

SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM OPINION ON REHEARING

          On March 23, 2003, we issued an opinion affirming the trial court’s judgment. See Goodman v. State, No. 01-02-00499-CR (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] March 23, 2003, pet. filed). On April 22, 2003, appellant, Roy Goodman, III, filed a pro se motion for rehearing, claiming that this Court erred by failing to consider “new evidence” due to the ineffectiveness of his counsel. Appellant did not identify the “new evidence” that he claims that he was not allowed to present on appeal. Appellant was represented by court-appointed counsel on appeal; however, appellant’s counsel filed no motion for rehearing with our Court after we issued our opinion affirming appellant’s conviction.

          Appellant complains that this Court erred by failing to consider new evidence. However, we are required to consider only the evidence that appears in the record. Young v. State, 552 S.W.2d 441, 443 (Tex. Crim. App. 1977); Welch v. State, 908 S.W.2d 258, 261 fn.1 (Tex. App.—El Paso 1995, no pet.). We must hear and determine a case on the record as filed and may not consider new evidence not appearing in the record. See Welch, 908 S.W.2d at 261.

          To the extent that appellant claims that his counsel was ineffective, Texas courts have held that there is no right to choice of court-appointed counsel. See King v. State, 29 S.W.3d 556, 566 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000); Buntion v. Harmon, 827 S.W.2d 945, 949 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992).

          Appellant’s pro se motion for rehearing is denied.

          It is so ORDERED.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Taft, Keyes, and Higley.

Do not publish. Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).