State v. Phillip Edward Norwood ( 2015 )


Menu:
  •                                       In The
    Court of Appeals
    Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont
    ____________________
    NO. 09-15-00083-CR
    ____________________
    THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellant
    V.
    PHILLIP EDWARD NORWOOD, Appellee
    _______________________________________________________            ______________
    On Appeal from the 9th District Court
    Montgomery County, Texas
    Trial Cause No. 10-01-00746 CR
    ________________________________________________________             _____________
    ORDER
    The State of Texas has appealed the trial court’s order dismissing an
    indictment for failing to disclose the identity of a confidential informant. See Tex.
    Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 44.01(a)(1) (West Supp. 2014). On March 5, 2015, the
    trial court granted a motion to withdraw filed by counsel for the Appellee, Phillip
    Edward Norwood. Norwood asserts that he is indigent and requests appointment of
    counsel. “A defendant in a criminal matter is entitled to be represented by counsel
    in an adversarial judicial proceeding.” Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 1.051(a)
    (West Supp. 2014). An indigent defendant is entitled to have an attorney appointed
    1
    to represent him in any adversary judicial proceeding, including an appeal. 
    Id. art. 1.051(c),
    (d)(1). Matters concerning the appointment of counsel should be
    addressed by the trial court in the first instance. See generally Tex. Code Crim.
    Proc. Ann. art. 26.04(a) (West Supp. 2014).
    It is, therefore, ORDERED that the case is remanded to the trial court for a
    hearing to determine whether the Appellee is indigent. See 
    id. art. 1.051(m)
    - (o).
    If the Appellee is not represented by retained counsel, is not financially able to
    employ counsel, and requests that counsel be appointed, then the trial court shall
    appoint counsel to represent the Appellee for the appeal unless he elects to proceed
    pro se, in which case the trial court shall determine whether Appellee’s decision is
    knowingly and intelligently made. See Faretta v. California, 
    422 U.S. 836
    , 
    95 S. Ct. 2525
    , 
    45 L. Ed. 2d 562
    (1975); East v. State, 
    48 S.W.3d 412
    (Tex. App.–
    Houston [14th Dist.] 2001, no pet.). The supplemental clerk’s record containing
    any orders and findings made by the trial court and a reporter’s record of any
    hearings conducted pursuant to this Order shall be filed with the Court of Appeals
    by June 29, 2015. The appeal is abated and all appellate timetables are suspended
    while the case is in the trial court.
    ORDER ENTERED May 28, 2015.
    PER CURIAM
    Before Kreger, Horton, and Johnson, JJ.
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 09-15-00083-CR

Filed Date: 5/28/2015

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 10/16/2015