John Rios v. the State of Texas

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: August 12, 2025
• Docket: 07-24-00416-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

In The Court of Appeals Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo

No. 07-24-00416-CR

JOHN RIOS, APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE

On Appeal from the 137th District Court Lubbock County, Texas Trial Court No. DC-2022-CR-1165, Honorable John J. “Trey” McClendon III, Presiding

August 12, 2025 ORDER OF ABATEMENT AND REMAND Before QUINN, C.J., and DOSS and YARBROUGH, JJ.

Appellant, John Rios was convicted of evading arrest1 and sentenced to twenty

years of confinement. He represented himself at trial with the assistance of standby

counsel. Following his conviction, Appellant did not request the appointment of appellate

counsel and filed a notice of appeal pro se. The appellate record has been filed. On

August 4, 2025, Appellant submitted a one-page appellate brief (excluding the table of

1 See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 38.04(b)(2)(A). contents). The brief fails to present any substantive issues or arguments, contains only

one reference to the appellate record, and cites to no legal authority. See TEX. R. APP.

P. 38.1.

When an appellant seeks to represent himself on appeal from a criminal conviction,

an appellate court has discretion to permit self-representation if the appellant can do so

without interfering with the administration of the appellate process. See Scheanette v.

State, 144 S.W.3d 503, 505 n.2 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004) (criminal defendant has no

constitutional right to represent himself on direct appeal); Bibbs v. State, No. 07-10-

00300-CR, 2011 Tex. App. LEXIS 9490, at *4 (Tex. App.—Amarillo Dec. 2, 2011, order)

(per curiam). Our exercise of that discretion depends on a case-by-case analysis of the

best interest of the appellant, the State, and the proper administration of justice. Id.

Appellant’s brief raises concerns whether allowing Appellant to represent himself

on appeal is in his best interest, the State’s best interest, and in furtherance of the proper

administration of justice. We, therefore, abate this appeal and remand the cause to the

trial court to determine the following:

1. whether Appellant still desires to prosecute the appeal;

2. whether Appellant is indigent and entitled to the appointment of appellate

counsel;

3. whether Appellant still desires to represent himself on appeal;

4. if Appellant desires to represent himself, whether his decision to do so is

competently and intelligently made, including whether he is aware of the

dangers and disadvantages of self-representation on appeal, see Hubbard

v. State, 739 S.W.2d 341, 345 (Tex. Crim. App. 1987); and

2 5. if Appellant desires to represent himself, whether allowing him to do so is in

his best interest, in the best interest of the State, and in furtherance of the

proper administration of justice.

The trial court shall issue findings of fact and conclusions of law addressing the

foregoing subjects. If it is determined that Appellant is entitled to appointed counsel and

that allowing appellant to represent himself on appeal is not in his best interest or that of

the State or the administration of justice, then the trial court shall appoint appellate

counsel. The name, address, email address, telephone number, and State Bar number

of any newly appointed counsel shall be included in the aforementioned findings.

The trial court shall cause to be developed (1) a clerk’s record containing the

findings and conclusions and (2) a reporter’s record transcribing any evidence and

argument presented at the hearing. The record shall be filed with the Clerk of this Court

on or before September 11, 2025.

It is so ordered.

Per Curiam

Do not publish.