Albert David Partida v. State ( 2001 )

NUMBER 13-00-206-CR

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI

___________________________________________________________________

ALBERT DAVID PARTIDA

, Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

, Appellee.

___________________________________________________________________

On appeal from the 25th District Court of Gonzales County, Texas.

____________________________________________________________________

O P I N I O N

Before Justices Hinojosa, Castillo, and Amidei⁽¹⁾ Opinion by Justice Amidei

Appellant was convicted by a jury on one count of a two count indictment for retaliation. The trial court sentenced appellant to five years probated for five years, a $2,500 fine and 30 days in jail.

The trial court conducted a hearing on appellant's motion to determine whether he was entitled to a free reporter's record for an appeal on August 24, 2000. Appellant appeals from the denial of this motion.

The issue is whether the trial court abused its discretion in not finding appellant indigent.

On April 20, 2000, the trial court found appellant to be indigent and appointed an attorney to represent him. Appellant argues that the trial court erred in making a new order on August 24, 2000, that he could pay for the reporter's record.

The record shows inconsistencies between what appellant represented as his financial condition at the time he applied for an attorney for representation in the trial court and his application for an attorney on appeal. These inconsistencies included: representing at first that he did not pay rent and later saying he paid rent to his parents in the form of maintenance; at first indicating he made $2,500 per month income, then later saying he only made $1,000 per month; claiming his credit was in shambles, but providing no documentation for his debts or the amount of his debts; not contacting any bank or other lenders to obtain a loan; and avoiding the question as to how much money he received since his conviction for the sale of two vehicles he had owned, although indicating he paid the money to creditors.

The matter of determination of indigency rests in the sound discretion of the trial court. Rosales v. State, 748 S.W.2d 451, 455 (Tex. Crim. App. 1987); Nelson v. State, 6 S.W.3d 722, 724-25 (Tex. App.--Waco 1999, no pet.) (defendant found not indigent where his only income was $570 per month from Social Security Administration, he received free room and board, and his only expense being a monthly electric bill). The trial court did not abuse its discretion by finding appellant misrepresented his financial situation to claim indigency and by denying appellant's motion.

We affirm the trial court's order.

______________________________________

MAURICE AMIDEI

Assigned Justice

Opinion ordered not published.

Tex. R. App. P. 47.3

Opinion delivered and filed

this the 19th day of April, 2001.

1. Former Justice Maurice Amidei, assigned to this Court by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Texas pursuant to Tex. Gov't Code Ann. § 74.003 (Vernon 1998).