Tony Kareem Whitfield v. State

Opinion

Motion Denied and Order filed August 14, 2012

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-11-00847-CR

____________

TONY KAREEN WHITFIELD, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 232nd District Court Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 1277164

ORDER

Appellant was convicted by a jury of aggravated robbery, enhanced by a prior felony conviction, and punishment was assessed at thirty-five years in prison. Appellant’s appointed counsel, Janet Celeste Blackburn, filed appellant’s brief raising two issues: sufficiency of the evidence and ineffective assistance of counsel. On July 23, 2012, Blackburn filed a motion to withdraw as attorney of record. According to the motion, appellant would like to proceed pro se on appeal.

In Faretta v. California, the Supreme Court held that a criminal defendant not only has the right to counsel at trial in state court under the Sixth Amendment, but also

“has a constitutional right to proceed without counsel when he voluntarily and intelligently elects to do so.” Faretta, 422 U.S. at 807, 95 S.Ct. at 2527. Applying the reasoning of Faretta, the Court found no right to self-representation on appeal of a criminal conviction, however. See Martinez v. Court of Appeal of California, 528 U.S. 152, 154, 120 S.Ct. 684, 687 (2000). Appellate courts may, in the exercise of their discretion, allow a defendant to proceed pro se on appeal based on the best interests of the defendant and the government. Id. at 161–63, 120 S.Ct. at 692.

After considering counsel’s motion, the brief on file, and appellant’s pro se motions that the court has previously denied, we conclude that appellant has not demonstrated that representing himself on appeal is in the best interests of appellant and the State. See Hadnot v. State, 14 S.W.3d 348, 350 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2000, order). Accordingly, we DENY counsel’s motion to withdraw.

PER CURIAM