Ojay Johnson v. State ( 2015 )

Order entered June 25, 2015
In The
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05-15-00347-CR
OJAY JOHNSON, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 195th Judicial District Court
Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. F13-47079-N
ORDER
The Court has before it the June 11, 2015 motion of Jeffrey Grass to withdraw as
appellant’s retained counsel. In the motion, counsel states that appellant has been unable to
comply with the terms of the fee agreement, and that appellant should be provided court-
appointed counsel. We GRANT the motion to withdraw. We DIRECT the trial court to
remove Jeffrey Grass as appellant’s retained attorney of record.
We ORDER the trial court to conduct a hearing to determine the following.
 Trial court shall first determine whether appellant desires to pursue the appeal. If
the trial court determines appellant no longer desires to pursue the appeal, it shall
make a finding to that effect.
 If the trial court determines that appellant desires to pursue the appeal, it shall
next determine whether appellant desires to be represented by counsel. If
appellant desires to be represented by counsel, the trial court shall determine
whether appellant is indigent and entitled to court appointed counsel. If appellant
is indigent, the trial court is ORDERED to appoint counsel for appellant.
 If the trial court If the trial court determines that appellant is not indigent, the trial
court shall determine whether appellant has retained new counsel to represent
him, and make findings as to the name, State Bar number, and contact information
for new counsel.
 If the trial court determines appellant does not wish to be represented by counsel,
the trial court shall advise appellant that he does not have the right to court-
appointed counsel of his choice. See Buntion v. Harmon, 827 S.W.2d 945 (Tex.
Crim. App. 1992); Sampson v. State, 854 S.W.2d 659 (Tex. App.–Dallas 1992, no
pet.).
 The trial court shall next advise appellant of the dangers and disadvantages of
self-representation. See Hubbard v. State, 739 S.W.2d 341, 345 (Tex. Crim. App.
1987). The trial court shall further advise appellant that he does not have the right
to hybrid representation and that any brief filed by counsel will be stricken.
 If the trial court determines appellant’s waiver of counsel is knowing and
voluntary, it shall provide appellant with a statement in substantially the form
provided in article 1.051(g) of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure. See TEX.
CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 1.051(g).
We ORDER the trial court to transmit a supplemental record containing the written
findings of fact, any supporting documentation, and any orders to this Court within THIRTY
DAYS of the date of this order. If the trial court determines appellant’s waiver of counsel is
knowing and voluntary, the supplemental record shall contain appellant’s signed, written waiver
in substantially the form provided by article 1.051(g).
The appeal is ABATED to allow the trial court to comply with this order. It shall be reinstated
thirty days from the date of this order or when the supplemental record is received, whichever is
earlier.
/s/ ADA BROWN
JUSTICE