Joshua David Canales v. State

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedJune 30, 2015
Docket05-15-00757-CR
StatusPublished

This text of Joshua David Canales v. State (Joshua David Canales v. State) 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
Joshua David Canales v. State, (Tex. Ct. App. 2015).

Opinion

Order entered June 25, 2015

In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-15-00757-CR

JOSHUA DAVID CANALES, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 194th Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. F14-24957-M

ORDER Appellant was convicted of fraudulent use of identifying information and sentenced to

twenty years’ imprisonment on May 8, 2015. He filed a pro se notice of appeal on June 3, 2015.

The documents before us do not reflect that appellant has either retained or appointed counsel to

represent him on appeal. We have before us appellant’s June 23, 2015 letter inquiring about the

procedure for pursuing the appeal. Accordingly, we ORDER the trial court to make findings

regarding the following.

 The trial court shall first determine whether appellant desires to be represented by counsel.

 If the trial court determines that appellant desires to be represented by counsel, the trial court shall determine whether appellant is indigent and entitled to court- appointed counsel. If the trial court finds appellant is indigent, we ORDER the trial court to appoint counsel to represent appellant on appeal.  If the trial court finds appellant is not indigent, the trial court shall determine whether appellant has retained counsel and, if so, include the name, State Bar number, and contact information for retained counsel.

 If the trial court determines that appellant does not wish to be represented by counsel, the trial court shall advise appellant of the dangers and disadvantages of self-representation. See Hubbard v. State, 739 S.W.2d 341, 345 (Tex. Crim. App. 1987). The trial court shall further advise appellant that he does not have the right to hybrid representation.

 If the trial court determines appellant’s waiver of counsel is knowing and voluntary, it shall provide appellant with a statement in substantially the form provided in article 1.051(g) of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 1.051(g).

We ORDER the trial court to transmit a supplemental record containing the written

findings of fact, any supporting documentation, and any orders to this Court within THIRTY

DAYS of the date of this order. If the trial court determines appellant’s waiver of counsel is

knowing and voluntary, the supplemental record shall contain appellant’s signed, written waiver

in substantially the form provided by article 1.051(g).

The appeal is ABATED to allow the trial court to comply with this order. It shall be

reinstated thirty days from the date of this order or when the supplemental record is received,

whichever is earlier.

/s/ ADA BROWN JUSTICE

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

Related

Hubbard v. State
739 S.W.2d 341 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1987)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Joshua David Canales v. State, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/joshua-david-canales-v-state-texapp-2015.