C O U R T O F A P P E A LS EI GHTH D I STRI CT OF TEXAS ELPASO, TEXAS

E UG E NIO R OD R I GU E Z, Ap pe lla nt, v. TH E ST AT E O F TE XA S, Appellee . § § § § § § § No . 0 8- 07 -0 02 48 -C R

Appea l from the 109th District Court of An dr e ws County , T e xas (TC# 1532)

OP INION ON ABATEMENT This an appe al from a

denial of a

motion requesting a DNAand hy pnosis test. Appellant filed a motion for a

ppointment of counsel pursua nt to Article 64 of the T exas Code of Criminal Procedur e, re questing a DNAtest and a hy pnosis test. J udg e Gibson wa s assig ned to hea r the mot ion , a nd a pp ointe d Jas on

L e a c h to re pr e se nt M r. Rod ri g ue z. Mr . Ro dr igue z fi le d a re qu e st for Mr. L eac h to withdraw fr om the case , which also stated that he would re prese nt himself. Mr. L eac h filed a motion to withdraw c iting a c onflict had a risen betwe en counse l and the defe ndant in that the scope of re prese ntation did not include filing a motion for hy

pnotic testing or other c ollatera l motions . The motion to withdraw wa s g rante d. Appellant’s motions for testing w ere denied. The court found that Appellant had pled guilty to the offe nse of murde r on Dec ember

7, 1983 and sente nced to life . The c onviction was upheld by the appe llate cour

t. The c ourt a lso fo un d App e lla

nt h a s r e c e ive d ampl e re vie w o f h is D NAte sti ngc la im, and the c la im fo r hy pn oti c te sti ngwa s sp ur iou s and wi tho ut m e ri t.-2-

I n his brief a

nd a pre vious moti on filed bef ore the Appellant’s br ief due date, Appe llant reque sted that an attorney be appointed to r epre sent him. A review of the re cord shows that at Appellant’s r equest, his cour t-appointed attorney

filed a motion to withdraw, whic h was g rante d by the trial cour

t. Howeve r, the re cord doe s show that Appellant wa s admonished of the da ng ers o f p ro ce ed i n g pr o s e . We have pr eviously held that the trial c ourt must develop evidenc e, on the rec ord, establishing that Appellant’s de cision to procee d pr o s e is made knowing ly and intelligently . Ma rio n v . S tate , 936 S.W .2d 5, 6 (Tex.App.--El Paso 1996, pet. r ef’ d). As such, we will abate the appe al to provide the tria l court the opportunity to properly

admonish Appellant o f t h e d an ger s o f p ro ce ed i n g pr o s e . It is a lso ne c e ssa ry to d e te rm ine wh e the r A

pp e lla nt i s en t i t l edt o co u n s el o nap p ea l . T h e t ri al co urt s h al l en t er al l n ec es s ary

o rd er s an d

/ o r f i n d i n gs which may

include any

appointment of new

counsel or f

indings makingthe Appellant a war e of the dang ers a

nd disadvantag es of se lf-re prese ntation and to proce ed pr o s e is knowingly and intelligently

made unde r Hu bb ar

d v . S tate , 739 S.W .2d 341, 345 (Tex.Crim.App. 1987). The t r i a l c o u rts h a l l f

o r w ar d i t s o r d e r s an d

/ o r f i n d i n g s t o th e D i s tr i c tC l e r k o f A n dr e w s C o un ty, Texas, on or befor e Jul y

3, 2009. The District Clerk sha ll prepar e and f orwa rd a suppleme ntal cler k’s re cord c ontaining the trial court’ s order s and/or finding s on or bef ore July 20, 2009. Fur ther the tra

nscription of the he aringshall be pre pare d, cer tified, and filed w ith this Court on or befor e Jul y

20, 2009. We a bate the a pp e a l, a nd re mand to t he tr ia l c ourt

fo r p ro c e e din g s c on sis te nt w iththi s opinion. J une 3, 2009 PER C URI AM-3-

B e f o r e C h e w , C . J. , M c C l u r e , a n d C ar r , JJ. Carr, J., Not Participating (Do Not Publish)