Ron Guzman v. the State of Texas

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedDecember 14, 2023
Docket03-23-00441-CR
StatusPublished

This text of Ron Guzman v. the State of Texas (Ron Guzman v. the State of Texas) 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
Ron Guzman v. the State of Texas, (Tex. Ct. App. 2023).

Opinion

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-23-00441-CR

Ron Guzman, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

FROM THE 22ND DISTRICT COURT OF HAYS COUNTY NO. CR-06-137-A, THE HONORABLE R. BRUCE BOYER, JUDGE PRESIDING

ORDER AND MEMORANDUM OPINION

PER CURIAM

Appellant’s counsel, appointed at the trial court for proceedings there, has filed a

motion to withdraw in this appeal from the denial of a motion for DNA testing. He states that he

filed a motion to withdraw that was not ruled on by the trial court. Counsel asserts that

Appellant would not want him to represent Appellant on appeal because counsel represented

Appellant at trial and has a conflict of interest. Counsel asserts that the State is not opposed to

his motion to withdraw.

The legislature has given the trial court the responsibility of appointing counsel in

criminal proceedings including requests for DNA testing. Tex. Code Crim. Proc. arts. 1.051(d),

26.04(j)(2), 64.01(c) (DNA testing). When counsel is appointed by the trial court to represent an

indigent defendant on appeal, it is the trial court’s responsibility to relieve or replace counsel.

See Enriquez v. State, 999 S.W.2d 906, 907 (Tex. App.—Waco 1999, no pet.); Williamson v. State, No. 03–12–00672–CR, 2013 WL 363677 at *1 (Tex. App.—Austin Jan. 25, 2013, no pet.)

(mem. op., not designated for publication).

We therefore abate the appeal and remand the cause to the trial court to hold a

hearing on this motion to withdraw, appoint new counsel, if appropriate, and make appropriate

findings and recommendations. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.8(b)(2), (3); see Webb v. State,

533 S.W.2d 780, 784 (Tex. Crim. App. 1976) (right to self-representation extends to appellate

process). A supplemental record from this hearing, including copies of all findings and orders

and a transcription of the court reporter’s notes, shall be forwarded to the clerk of this Court as a

supplemental record not later than thirty days from the date of this opinion.

Before Chief Justice Byrne, Justices Kelly and Theofanis

Abated and Remanded

Filed: December 14, 2023

Do Not Publish

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

Related

Enriquez v. State
999 S.W.2d 906 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1999)
Webb v. State
533 S.W.2d 780 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1976)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Ron Guzman v. the State of Texas, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ron-guzman-v-the-state-of-texas-texapp-2023.