in Re: Jose Muro Rodriguez

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: July 9, 2004
• Docket: 13-04-00346-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

NUMBER 13-04-000346-CR

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

___________________________________________________________________

IN RE JOSE MURO RODRIGUEZ

__________________________________________________________________

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus ___________________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Rodriguez, Garza, and Wittig

Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam

         Relator Jose Muro Rodriguez filed a petition for writ of mandamus in the above cause on July 6, 2004. The Court, having examined and fully considered the petition for writ of mandamus, is of the opinion that relator has not shown himself entitled to the relief sought. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.8. Accordingly, 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 9th day of July, 2004.