Cory Ray Shelby v. State ( 2021 )

In the
Court of Appeals
Second Appellate District of Texas
at Fort Worth
___________________________
No. 02-20-00139-CR
___________________________
CORY RAY SHELBY, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS
On Appeal from the 372nd District Court
Tarrant County, Texas
Trial Court No. 1601893
Before Kerr, Birdwell, and Bassel, JJ.
Memorandum Opinion by Justice Kerr
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Cory Ray Shelby, proceeding pro se, attempts to appeal from the trial court’s
alleged “failure to make formal inquiry into Marsden hearing [and]/or motion to
substitute counsel.”1
Generally, this court has jurisdiction to consider appeals by criminal defendants
only after a judgment of conviction. See McKown v. State, 915 S.W.2d 160, 161 (Tex.
App.—Fort Worth 1996, no pet.) (per curiam). “We do not have jurisdiction to
review interlocutory orders unless that jurisdiction has been expressly granted to us by
law.” Id.
We notified Shelby of our concern that we lack jurisdiction over this appeal
because the trial court had not entered any appealable orders. We informed him that
we could dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction unless, within ten days, he or any
party wanting to continue the appeal filed a response showing grounds for continuing
the appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 43.2(f), 44.3. Ten days have passed, and we have
received no response. Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction. See
Tex. R. App. P. 43.2(f).
People v. Marsden, 465 P.2d 44 (Cal. 1970), is “the seminal [California] case
1
regarding the substitution of appointed counsel.” People v. Horton, 906 P.2d 478,
498 (Cal. 1995). In Marsden, the California Supreme Court held that a trial court must
afford a criminal defendant who has moved for substitute counsel based on his
appointed counsel’s ineffective assistance the opportunity to explain the bases for his
claims because “a judge who denies a motion for substitution of attorneys solely on
the basis of his courtroom observations, despite a defendant’s offer to relate specific
instances of misconduct, abuses the exercise of his discretion to determine the
competency of the attorney.” Marsden, 465 P.2d at 48.
2
/s/ Elizabeth Kerr
Elizabeth Kerr
Justice
Do Not Publish
Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)
Delivered: January 7, 2021
3