in the Interest of R.R.H., M.D.J. and M.K. Children v. Department of Family and Protective Services ( 2015 )


Menu:
  •                               COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE
    FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON
    ORDER
    Appellate case name:        In the Interest of R.R.H., M.D.J., and M.K., Children
    Appellate case number:      01-14-00874-CV
    Trial court case number:    74587
    Trial court:                300th District Court of Brazoria County
    On December 12, 2013, the trial court appointed counsel, Toni Kersey, to
    represent appellant, Destinye Kelley, in the proceedings in the trial court. On September
    29, 2014, appellant requested that counsel Kersey be excused and that appellant be
    permitted to represent herself in the trial court. After admonishing appellant regarding
    the dangers and disadvantages of self-representation, the trial court granted appellant’s
    request and dismissed counsel.
    The case proceeded to trial on September 29, 2014, with appellant representing
    herself pro se. The trial court signed the final judgment in this case on October 17, 2014,
    terminating appellant’s parental rights to R.R.H., M.D.J., and M.K.
    On October 22, 2014, an attorney, Blair Parker, filed an “appearance as attorney of
    record for” appellant. Appellant timely appealed on October 28, 2014, when counsel
    Parker filed a notice of appeal on appellant’s behalf. See TEX. R. APP. P. 26.1(b). On
    November 6, 2014, appellant filed a “Motion for Court Appointed Attorney for Appeal
    Under TFC § 107.013” in the trial court, in which she requested appointment of counsel
    for purposes of appeal, because counsel Parker “was hired by a Good Samaritan to
    represent [appellant] solely on a Motion for New Trial.” See id. 20.1(a)(3). Appellant
    attached an affidavit of indigence to the motion. See id. 20.1(a)(2).
    On November 6, 2014, counsel Parker filed a motion to withdraw as counsel in
    this Court. See id. 6.5.
    The court reporter filed a contest to appellant’s affidavit of indigence on
    November 7, 2014. See id. 20.1(e). Further, on November 10, 2014, the Department of
    Family and Protective Services filed both a challenge to appellant’s presumption of
    indigence, arguing that appellant was no longer indigent and that her financial
    circumstances had changed, and a contest to appellant’s affidavit of indigence. See id.
    On December 8, 2014, the trial court granted the contest to the affidavit of indigence and
    found that the “original order of indigency” was void. Appellant did not file a motion
    seeking review of the trial court’s order within 10 days of the order. See id. 20.1(j)(1),
    (2). Therefore, pursuant to the trial court’s December 8, 2014 order, appellant is not
    indigent.
    Nevertheless, on January 21, 2015, counsel Parker filed a letter with the Court,
    stating that “our client would like to proceed on her appeal Pro Se or with another
    attorney.” And, although appellant was notified of her right to object to counsel’s motion
    to withdraw, no objection has been filed. Accordingly, we GRANT counsel Parker’s
    motion to withdraw.
    Appellant is therefore ORDERED, within 15 days of the date of this order, to file
    a notice with the Court either indicating her desire to proceed pro se on appeal or
    providing the name and contact information of retained counsel. See, e.g., Minjares v.
    State, 
    577 S.W.2d 222
    , 224 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978) (“Appellant’s failure to obtain
    counsel when provided an adequate opportunity to do so constitutes a waiver under the
    facts of this case.”).
    It is further ORDERED that appellant pay the filing fee to this Court no later than
    30 days from the date of this order, or the Court may dismiss the appeal. See TEX. R.
    APP. P. 5, 42.3.
    Finally, it is ORDERED that, no later than 30 days from the date of this order,
    appellant file with this Court proof that she has requested and paid or made arrangements
    to pay for preparation of the reporter’s record, or the Court may consider and decide only
    those issues or points that do not require a reporter’s record for a decision. See id.
    34.6(b)(1), 35.3(b)(2), (b)(3), (c), 37.3(c).
    It is so ORDERED.
    Judge’s signature: /s/ Sherry Radack
     Acting individually     Acting for the Court
    Date: February 3, 2015
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 01-14-00874-CV

Filed Date: 2/3/2015

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 2/4/2015