Hector Francisco Tarango v. the State of Texas ( 2024 )

Opinion filed February 1, 2024
In The
Eleventh Court of Appeals
___________
No. 11-23-00271-CR
___________
HECTOR FRANCISCO TARANGO, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 2
Ector County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 22-3010-CCL2
MEMORANDUM OPINION
This appeal stems from the trial court’s disapproval of the total amount of fees
requested by Appellant’s former court-appointed counsel, Christy L. Cauthen, in his
pending case. On November 27, 2023, the Ector County District Clerk’s Office
forwarded Cauthen’s notice of appeal, along with her fee submission form and the
trial court information form. We dismiss the appeal.
When this appeal was docketed, the clerk of this court notified Cauthen that
it did not appear that this court had jurisdiction in this matter. See TEX. CODE CRIM.
PROC. ANN. art. 26.05(c) (West Supp. 2023). We requested that she respond and
show grounds to continue this appeal. Cauthen did not file a response. However, in
a telephone call with our clerk’s office, she stated that she appealed the attorney’s
fees that she received but that “it should not have been sent to this court.” We
dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction.
An attorney whose request for payment is disapproved may appeal the
disapproval by filing a motion with the presiding judge of the administrative judicial
region, not the court of appeals. See id.; Rutledge v. State, No. 05-22-00689-CR,
2022 WL 2865874, at *1 (Tex. App.—Dallas July 21, 2022, no pet.) (mem. op., not
designated for publication); see also State ex rel. Wice v. Fifth Jud. Dist. Ct. of
Appeals, 581 S.W.3d 189, 197 (Tex. Crim. App. 2018) (“Article 26.05(c) sets out
an appeal process whereby appointed attorneys can appeal a trial court’s refusal to
pay their requested fees.”). When a motion is filed, the presiding judge of the
administrative judicial region must review the disapproval and determine the
appropriate amount of payment and may conduct a hearing on the matter. CRIM.
PROC. art. 26.05(c). However, “[n]othing in the code provides for review by this
Court.” Rutledge, 2022 WL 2865874, at *1. We therefore lack jurisdiction to
consider this appeal. Id.We dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction.
JOHN M. BAILEY
CHIEF JUSTICE
February 1, 2024
Do not publish. See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).
Panel consists of: Bailey, C.J.,
Trotter, J., and Williams, J.
2