Charles Frank White v. the State of Texas ( 2022 )

In The
Court of Appeals
Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo
No. 07-21-00215-CR
CHARLES FRANK WHITE, APPELLANT
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE
On Appeal from the 142nd District Court
Midland County, Texas
Trial Court No. CR53721, Honorable Leah G. Robertson, Presiding
January 21, 2022
ORDER OF ABATEMENT AND REMAND
Before QUINN, C.J., and PARKER and DOSS, JJ.
Appellant, Charles Frank White, proceeding pro se,1 appeals his conviction for
burglary of a building. The appellate record has been filed and appellant’s brief was due
January 5, 2022. That day, appellant mailed a single-page document to this Court which
we have construed as his appellate brief. The document does not, however, raise any
1 Appellant was permitted to represent himself at trial without standby counsel and has not
requested appointment of appellate counsel.
legal issues, make any legal argument, reference the appellate record, or cite to any legal
authorities. 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) (holding a 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 for further proceedings. Upon remand, the trial court shall conduct a hearing 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
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
2
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 February 22, 2022.
Should additional time be needed for the trial court to comply with this order, it
must request same before February 22, 2022.
It is so ordered.
Per Curiam
Do not publish.
3