Kyle Holland v. State

Court of Appeals of Texas

Kyle Holland v. State

DecidedMay 11, 2017

Docket01-17-00277-CR

StatusPublished

This text of Kyle Holland v. State (Kyle Holland 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

Kyle Holland v. State, (Tex. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER

Appellate case name: Kyle Holland. v. The State of Texas

Appellate case number: 01-17-00277-CR

Trial court case number: C-1-CR-16-100073

Trial court: County Court at Law No. 2 of Travis County

Proceeding pro se, appellant, Kyle Holland, has filed a notice of appeal indicating that he appeals the county court at law’s order affirming the judgment of the Austin Municipal Court.1 In this Court, appellant has filed a “Motion for Court Appointed Attorney.”

The county court at law’s order shows that, in the municipal court, a jury found appellant guilty of camping in violation of Austin City Code § 9-4-11. A violation of section 9-4-11 is a Class C misdemeanor, punishable by a fine. Austin, Tex., Code of Ordinances ch. 1-1, § 1-1-99(B), ch. 9-1, art. 1, § 9-4-3 (2017). An individual charged with a Class C misdemeanor that is punishable only by a fine is not entitled to appointed counsel, even if the individual is indigent. See Valentine v. State, No. 07-13-0307-CR, 2013 WL 1800112, at *1 (Tex. App.—Amarillo Apr. 25, 2013, pet. ref’d) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (citations omitted); see also TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 1.051(c) (West 2005) (providing indigent defendant is entitled to have attorney appointed to represent him in adversary judicial proceeding “that may result in punishment by confinement and in any other criminal proceeding if the court concludes that the interests of justice require representation”). Accordingly, we deny the motion.

1 The appeal initially was filed in the Third Court of Appeals. Pursuant to its docket equalization authority, the Supreme Court of Texas transferred the appeal to this Court. See Misc. Docket No. 17-9035, Transfer of Cases from Courts of Appeals (Tex. Mar. 28, 2017); see also TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 73.001 (West 2005) (authorizing transfer of cases). It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Russell Lloyd  Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Date: May 11, 2017

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

COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER

Appellate case name: Kyle Holland. v. The State of Texas

Appellate case number: 01-17-00277-CR

Trial court case number: C-1-CR-16-100073

Trial court: County Court at Law No. 2 of Travis County

Proceeding pro se, appellant, Kyle Holland, has filed a notice of appeal indicating that he appeals the county court at law’s order affirming the judgment of the Austin Municipal Court.1 In this Court, appellant has filed a “Motion for Court Appointed Attorney.”

The county court at law’s order shows that, in the municipal court, a jury found appellant guilty of camping in violation of Austin City Code § 9-4-11. A violation of section 9-4-11 is a Class C misdemeanor, punishable by a fine. Austin, Tex., Code of Ordinances ch. 1-1, § 1-1-99(B), ch. 9-1, art. 1, § 9-4-3 (2017). An individual charged with a Class C misdemeanor that is punishable only by a fine is not entitled to appointed counsel, even if the individual is indigent. See Valentine v. State, No. 07-13-0307-CR, 2013 WL 1800112, at *1 (Tex. App.—Amarillo Apr. 25, 2013, pet. ref’d) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (citations omitted); see also TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 1.051(c) (West 2005) (providing indigent defendant is entitled to have attorney appointed to represent him in adversary judicial proceeding “that may result in punishment by confinement and in any other criminal proceeding if the court concludes that the interests of justice require representation”). Accordingly, we deny the motion.

1 The appeal initially was filed in the Third Court of Appeals. Pursuant to its docket equalization authority, the Supreme Court of Texas transferred the appeal to this Court. See Misc. Docket No. 17-9035, Transfer of Cases from Courts of Appeals (Tex. Mar. 28, 2017); see also TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 73.001 (West 2005) (authorizing transfer of cases). It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Russell Lloyd  Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Date: May 11, 2017

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Kyle Holland v. State, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kyle-holland-v-state-texapp-2017.