Hector Francisco Tarango v. the State of Texas

Court of Appeals of Texas

Hector Francisco Tarango v. the State of Texas

DecidedFebruary 1, 2024

Docket11-23-00271-CR

StatusPublished

This text of Hector Francisco Tarango v. the State of Texas (Hector Francisco Tarango 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.

Bluebook

Hector Francisco Tarango v. the State of Texas, (Tex. Ct. App. 2024).

Pincite

Opinion

Opinion filed February 1, 2024

In The

Eleventh Court of Appeals ___________

No. 11-23-00271-CR ___________

HECTOR FRANCISCO TARANGO, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 2 Ector County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 22-3010-CCL2

MEMORANDUM OPINION This appeal stems from the trial court’s disapproval of the total amount of fees requested by Appellant’s former court-appointed counsel, Christy L. Cauthen, in his pending case. On November 27, 2023, the Ector County District Clerk’s Office forwarded Cauthen’s notice of appeal, along with her fee submission form and the trial court information form. We dismiss the appeal. When this appeal was docketed, the clerk of this court notified Cauthen that it did not appear that this court had jurisdiction in this matter. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 26.05(c) (West Supp. 2023). We requested that she respond and show grounds to continue this appeal. Cauthen did not file a response. However, in a telephone call with our clerk’s office, she stated that she appealed the attorney’s fees that she received but that “it should not have been sent to this court.” We dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction. An attorney whose request for payment is disapproved may appeal the disapproval by filing a motion with the presiding judge of the administrative judicial region, not the court of appeals. See id.; Rutledge v. State, No. 05-22-00689-CR, 2022 WL 2865874, at *1 (Tex. App.—Dallas July 21, 2022, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication); see also State ex rel. Wice v. Fifth Jud. Dist. Ct. of Appeals, 581 S.W.3d 189, 197 (Tex. Crim. App. 2018) (“Article 26.05(c) sets out an appeal process whereby appointed attorneys can appeal a trial court’s refusal to pay their requested fees.”). When a motion is filed, the presiding judge of the administrative judicial region must review the disapproval and determine the appropriate amount of payment and may conduct a hearing on the matter. CRIM. PROC. art. 26.05(c). However, “[n]othing in the code provides for review by this Court.” Rutledge, 2022 WL 2865874, at *1. We therefore lack jurisdiction to consider this appeal. Id. We dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction.

JOHN M. BAILEY CHIEF JUSTICE

February 1, 2024 Do not publish. See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b). Panel consists of: Bailey, C.J., Trotter, J., and Williams, J.

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

Opinion filed February 1, 2024

In The

Eleventh Court of Appeals ___________

No. 11-23-00271-CR ___________

HECTOR FRANCISCO TARANGO, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 2 Ector County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 22-3010-CCL2

MEMORANDUM OPINION This appeal stems from the trial court’s disapproval of the total amount of fees requested by Appellant’s former court-appointed counsel, Christy L. Cauthen, in his pending case. On November 27, 2023, the Ector County District Clerk’s Office forwarded Cauthen’s notice of appeal, along with her fee submission form and the trial court information form. We dismiss the appeal. When this appeal was docketed, the clerk of this court notified Cauthen that it did not appear that this court had jurisdiction in this matter. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 26.05(c) (West Supp. 2023). We requested that she respond and show grounds to continue this appeal. Cauthen did not file a response. However, in a telephone call with our clerk’s office, she stated that she appealed the attorney’s fees that she received but that “it should not have been sent to this court.” We dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction. An attorney whose request for payment is disapproved may appeal the disapproval by filing a motion with the presiding judge of the administrative judicial region, not the court of appeals. See id.; Rutledge v. State, No. 05-22-00689-CR, 2022 WL 2865874, at *1 (Tex. App.—Dallas July 21, 2022, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication); see also State ex rel. Wice v. Fifth Jud. Dist. Ct. of Appeals, 581 S.W.3d 189, 197 (Tex. Crim. App. 2018) (“Article 26.05(c) sets out an appeal process whereby appointed attorneys can appeal a trial court’s refusal to pay their requested fees.”). When a motion is filed, the presiding judge of the administrative judicial region must review the disapproval and determine the appropriate amount of payment and may conduct a hearing on the matter. CRIM. PROC. art. 26.05(c). However, “[n]othing in the code provides for review by this Court.” Rutledge, 2022 WL 2865874, at *1. We therefore lack jurisdiction to consider this appeal. Id. We dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction.

JOHN M. BAILEY CHIEF JUSTICE

February 1, 2024 Do not publish. See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b). Panel consists of: Bailey, C.J., Trotter, J., and Williams, J.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Hector Francisco Tarango v. the State of Texas, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hector-francisco-tarango-v-the-state-of-texas-texapp-2024.