1 ... SeeTe x. R. App . P. 47. 4. 

## COURT OFAPPEALS SECOND DISTRICTOF TEXAS FORT WORTH NO . 02- 08- 277- CR J E R E M Y UR I AH R OS AL E S AP P E L L ANT V . TH E STA TE O F TEXA S STA TE

----- ----- -- FR O M THE 7 8TH DI STRI CT CO URT O F W I CH I TA CO UN TY

----- ----- -- 

### MEMORANDU M OPI NI ON 1

----- ----- -- O n M ay 9, 2006 , A ppe l l antJe r em y Ur i ah Rosa l espl ea ded gui l t y t o t he f el ony of f ens e o fi nj ury to a ch i l d, a nd t he t r i alco urts ent enc ed hi m t o f i ve y e a rs’ co m m u n i ty s u p e rvi sion . O n M a y5 , 2 0 0 8 , th eS tate fi l e d a m o ti o n to pr oce ed t o a d j u d i c a t i o n o fg u i l t , a l l e g i n g Ro s a l e sh a d v i o l a t e d t h et e r m san d
con di t i onsofhi s com m uni t y sup ervi si on byf ai l i ng t o ( 1) r epo rt , ( 2) pr ovi de
w r i tt en pr oof ofcom m uni t y servi ce w or k, ( 3) pay t he super vi si on f ee, ( 4) pay2 ... T h isisth eS ta te ’s s e c o n d m o tio n to p ro c e e d to a d ju d ic a tio n . In

M a r c h 2 0 0 7 , t h eS t a t ef ile d it sf ir s tm o t io n , a n d t h et r ia l c o u rtt e m p o r a r ily r evoked R osal es’ s com m uni ty su p ervi si on, sent enci ng hi m t o 1 22 days’ c o n fi n e m e n t. 2 th ecri m esto p p e r f e e , a n d (5 ) p rov i d e v e ri fi c a ti o n o f a p p l y i n g fo r em p l o y m e n t. 2 O n M ay 14, 2008 , t he t r i alco urtap poi nt ed Tom A l l ens w ort h t o r epr es ent R osal es athi s adj u di cat i on hear i ng. O n Jul y 30 , 20 08 , A l l ensw ort h, at R os a l e s’s r equest , f i l ed a m ot i on t o w i t hdr aw . O n A ugu st1, 20 08 , t he t r i al
c ou rtd e ni e d t hem ot i on . Att hea dj ud i c a t i on h e a r i ng o n Augu s t8, 2008 , R osal es pl eaded t r ue t o al l f i ve of t he al l eged com m uni t y super vi si on vi ol at i ons, and t he t r i al courtsent enced h i m t o t w el ve year s’ conf i nem ent . Thi s appeal f ol l ow ed. I n h i s s o l ei ss u e , R o s a le s a rg u e s th a t t h etr i a l co u rtv i o l a ted h i s ri g h t t o equ alpr ot ec t i on byf ai l i ng t o hol d a hea r i ng, ort o r ul e, on A l l ens w ort h’ s m ot i on t o w i t hdr aw . Speci f i cal l y, Ro sal es cl ai m s t hat [ a] def endan t i s i ncom pet entt o st and t r i ali f , am ong ot hert hi ngs, he ca nno tp r ope r l y c om m uni ca t e w i t h c ouns el . And a de f end ant m ay di sc har ge app oi nt ed cou ns eli f , am ong ot her t hi ngs , heca nnot p r o p e r lyc o m m u n ic a t ew it h c o u n s e l. B u tT e x a sla w re q u ir e so n ly “m or e t han a s ci nt i l l a” of evi dence ofi ncom pet ence t o t r i ggera sua sponte i nf or m al i nqu i ry, w hi l e a def endan t m ust af f i r m at i vel y r ai se a “ se em i ngl y s ubs t ant i alco m pl ai nt ” abo utap poi nt ed cou ns elt o be ent i t l ed t o a ny s ortof h ea r i ng. No r at i ona l ba si s exi st s f ort he di scr epancy. Th e def endan t seeki ng t o di schar g e appoi nt ed coun seli s t her ef or e deni ed equal pr ot ect i on of t he l aw .3

Th e Stat e t akes t he posi t i on t hatRo sal es i s ar gui ng t hathe w as ent i t l ed to a c o m p e ten c yh e a ri n g . W ed i sa g ree . W ei n terp ret R o sa l e s’s a rgu m e n t t o
m ea n t hatw hen a m ot i on t o w i t hdr aw i s f i l ed, t he bur den r equ i r ed t o obt ai n a hea r i ng on t hat m ot i on s houl d bet he sa m e a s t he bur den r equ i r ed t o obt ai n a hea r i ng on co m pet enc y. A sth eS ta te p o i n te d o u t, h o w e v e r, o n A u g u s t 1 , 2 0 0 8 , th et r ia l c o u rt hel d a he ar i ng on A l l ens w ort h’ s m oti on t o w i t hdr aw an d or der ed t hati tbe d e n ie d . T h e r e f o r e , R o s a le sh a ss u f f e r e d n o h a r m , h a sn o le g a llyc o g n iz a b le i n te re s t i n th e o u tc o m e , a n d a c c o rd i n g l y w e d i s m i s s th i s a p p e a l a s m o o t. See Mur phy v. Hunt, 455 U . S. 478, 481, 102 S . Ct . 1181 , 1183 ( 198 2) ( hol di ng t hata ca se bec om es m oot w hen t he i ss uespr es ent ed ar e n o l onge rl i ve ort he p a rti e s la c ka le g a l l yc o g n i z a b l ei n te re s t i n th eo u tc o m e ); se e al soPha r r i s v. S ta te, 1 6 5 S .W .3 d 6 8 1 , 6 8 8 n . 7 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 2 0 0 5 ).

B OBM CC OY J U S T I C E PA N EL: GA RD N ER, W A LKER, an d M C C O Y, JJ. W A LKER, J. co ncu r s w i t houtopi ni on. DO NO T P UBLI SH Tex. R. A pp. P. 47. 2( b) DEL I VERE D: J un e18, 2009