Donnell Johnson v. State ( 2016 )


Menu:
  •                                   COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE
    FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON
    ORDER OF ABATEMENT
    Appellate case name:       Donnell Johnson v. The State of Texas
    Appellate case number:     01-15-00924-CR
    Trial court case number: 1450426
    Trial court:               232nd District Court of Harris County
    Appellant, Donnell Johnson, has filed a “Motion to Dismiss Appeal Attorney and Be
    Admonished for Self-Representation,” asking this Court to dismiss his appointed appellate
    counsel and admonish appellant regarding self-representation. Appellant’s motion indicates that
    he has lost confidence in his counsel’s “performance on appeal.” We abate the appeal.
    An appellant has a right to counsel on direct appeal from a criminal conviction. See
    Buntion v. Harmon, 
    827 S.W.2d 945
    , 948 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992); see also TEX. CODE CRIM.
    PROC. ANN. art. 1.051(a) (Vernon Supp. 2015). An appellant does not, however, have a right to
    self-representation on appeal. See Scheanette v. State, 
    144 S.W.3d 503
    , 505 n.2 (Tex. Crim.
    App. 2004); Crawford v. State, 
    136 S.W.3d 417
    , 418 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 2004, order);
    Cormier v. State, 
    85 S.W.3d 496
    , 497–98 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2002, order); Hadnot
    v. State, 
    14 S.W.3d 348
    , 350 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2000, order). We review
    requests for self-representation in appeals from criminal convictions on a case-by-case basis,
    considering the best interests of the appellant, the State, and the administration of justice. See
    
    Crawford, 136 S.W.3d at 418
    ; 
    Cormier, 85 S.W.3d at 498
    ; 
    Hadnot, 14 S.W.3d at 350
    . Further,
    for an appellant’s waiver of the right to counsel to be valid, it must be made after the appellant is
    properly admonished regarding the dangers and disadvantages of self-representation and must be
    made voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 1.051(f);
    Campbell v. State, 
    606 S.W.2d 862
    , 863 (Tex. Crim. App. 1980).
    Accordingly, we abate this appeal and remand for the trial court to immediately conduct a
    hearing at which a representative of the Harris County District Attorney’s Office and appellant’s
    counsel, J. Sidney Crowell, shall be present. Appellant shall also be present for the hearing in
    person or, if appellant is incarcerated, at the trial court’s discretion, appellant may participate in
    the hearing by use of a closed-circuit video teleconferencing system that provides for a
    simultaneous compressed full motion video and interactive communication of image and sound.1
    We direct the trial court to:
    1) determine whether appellant wishes to waive his right to counsel on appeal and
    proceed pro se;
    2) if so, admonish appellant regarding the dangers and disadvantages of
    self-representation, including admonishments regarding the wisdom and practical
    consequences of self-representation, including that there are rules of appellate
    procedure that appellant will be obligated to follow and he will not be granted any
    special consideration because of his lack of formal training in law;
    3) determine whether appellant’s waiver is intelligent and voluntary;
    4) determine whether any decision by appellant to proceed pro se is in the best
    interest of appellant, the State, and the administration of justice;
    5) if appellant wishes to waive counsel, after being properly admonished, and the
    waiver is intelligent and voluntary and is in the best interest of appellant, the
    State, and the administration of justice, discharge appointed counsel;
    6) make any other findings and recommendations the trial court deems appropriate;
    and
    7) issue written findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendations as to
    these issues, separate and apart from any docket sheet notations.
    See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 1.051(a), (c), (d)(1), (f); 26.04(j)(2); Goffney v. State, 
    843 S.W.2d 583
    , 584–85 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992); Geeslin v. State, 
    600 S.W.2d 309
    , 313–14 (Tex.
    Crim. App. 1980); 
    Cormier, 85 S.W.3d at 497
    –988; East v. State, 
    48 S.W.3d 412
    , 414 (Tex.
    App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2001, order).
    The trial court shall have a court reporter, or court recorder, record the hearing. The trial
    court clerk is directed to file a supplemental clerk’s record containing the trial court’s findings,
    recommendations, and orders with this Court within 30 days of the date of this order. The court
    reporter is directed to file the reporter’s record of the hearing within 30 days of the date of this
    order. If the hearing is conducted by video teleconference, a certified recording of the hearing
    shall also be filed in this Court within 30 days of the date of this order.
    The appeal is abated, treated as a closed case, and removed from this Court’s active
    docket. The appeal will be reinstated on this Court’s active docket when records that comply
    with our order are filed with the Clerk of this Court. The court coordinator of the trial court shall
    set a hearing date and notify the parties.
    1      On appellant’s request, appellant and his counsel shall be able to communicate privately
    without being recorded or heard by the trial court or the State’s attorney.
    It is so ORDERED.
    Judge’s signature: /s/ Terry Jennings
     Acting individually    Acting for the Court
    Date: April 12, 2016