in Re: Carlos Criollo

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: June 29, 2004
• Docket: 13-04-00314-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

NUMBER 13-04-000314-CR

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

___________________________________________________________________

IN RE CARLOS CRIOLLO

__________________________________________________________________

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus ___________________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Rodriguez and Wittig

Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam

         Relator Carlos Criollo filed a petition for writ of mandamus in the above cause on June 24, 2004. The Court, having examined and fully considered the petition for writ of mandamus, is of the opinion that said petition should be denied as it fails to comply with the appellate rules. See generally Tex. R. App. P. 52. The petition for writ of mandamus is hereby DENIED.

         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.). Based upon the allegations within the petition for writ of mandamus, we suggest that the trial court cause notice to be given and thereafter conduct a hearing to determine whether appellant desires to prosecute an appeal; whether appellant is indigent and entitled to appointed counsel; and whether appointed counsel is adequately representing the relator or whether other appellate counsel should be appointed to represent relator.

                                                                        PER CURIAM

Memorandum opinion delivered and filed

this 29^th day of June, 2004.