### TEXA S C OU R T OF A PPEAL S, THIR D DIST R ICT , AT AU STIN

NO. 03-04-00542- CR

Re ne G om e z , A ppe lla nt

v. The State of Texas, App ellee

F ROM THE DISTRICT CO URT OF COM AL COUNTY , 22ND JUDICIAL DISTRI CT NO. CR2002- 136, HO NORAB LE SAM ROB ERTSON, JR., JUDGE PRESIDI NG

M E M O R

A N D U M O P I N I O N Ap pe lla nt R e ne Go me z wa s c on vic te d o f th ree co un ts o f p os se ssi on wi th i nte nt t o deliver a controlled substanc e. See Tex. Health & Safety Code Ann. § 481.112 (West 2005). In one iss ue , G ome z a

pp e a ls the dis tr ic t court ’s de nia l of his mot ion to sub sti tut e c ouns e l. G ome z cl a ims that the district court’s r

uling violated his rig ht to retain counse l of his c hoice. We will aff irm the dis tr ic t c ourt ’s de nia l of

the mot ion

to s ub sti tut e c ouns e l.
BACK GR OUND The district cour

t a ppointed Atanac io Campos to repr esent Gomez in May 2004 and set his case for jury trial on Monday , Aug ust 23, 2004. At the docket c all on the Thursda y befor e trial, Ronald Z ipp appea

red on be half of G omez and informed the district c ourt that he had just been hired to take over the case . Z ipp filed a mot ion to substitut e counsel and a motion for c ontinuance2

t h at same da

y . Although the motion to s ubstitut e counse l stated that Gomez no longe r wa nted Campos to repr esent him, it provided no specific g rounds supporting the reque st. The district court de nie d th e mot ion

to s ub sti tut e c ouns e l and the mot ion fo r c ontin ua nc e be c a us e the tr ia l w a s o nly d ay s aw ay . A t t

h e s a me ti me , th e d is tr ic t c o u rt i n f o r me d G o me z:
Whoever repr esents y ou next wee k . . . is goingto be betwe en the law y ers . . . but as far as I am conc erne d, the lawy er alrea dy appointed for y ou [C ampos] will be y our lawy e r, so y ’a ll h a ve to g e t it wo rk e d o ut h ow e ve r you ’r e g oin g to d o it , a ll r ig ht?
Af te r a br ie f r e c e ss, Go me z ap pe are d th e same da y wi th C a mpo s and

e nte re d a ple a

of g uil ty to a ll char g es and a p le a o f tr

u e to a p r io r c o n v ic ti o n f

o r p u r p o s e s o f e n h an c e me n t o f p u n is h me n t. The dis tr ic t c ourt

fo llo we d th e state ’s re c omm e nd a tio n a nd se nte nc e d G ome z to twe nty -t hr e e y e a rs in prison. Gomez filed a mot ion for new t rial allegingthat the district court violated his rig ht to be represe nted by counsel of his c hoice. He also claimed that this allege d violation resulted in an involuntary

plea. At a

hear ing on the motion for new trial, Gomez testified that he thoug ht he was
u n a b l e t o c o n s u l tw i t h h i s r e t a i n e d c o u n s e l , Z i p p , b e f

o r e e n t e r i n g a

p l e a o f g u i l t y: Q: Why did y ou think Mr. Z ipp was not there [i n court, following the re cess] at that time? A: Mr. Campos stated to me I couldn’t speak to him. He wa s not my attorney no more.Gomez also expl ained his dec ision to pl ead guilty in a handwr itten statement offe red a s an 1 e xhibi t a t th e he ari ngon

his mot ion

fo r n e w tri a l: After Mr. Z ipp left, Mr. Campos c ame in a nd told me that he had the pape rs rea dy to sign for 23 y ear s. He sa id the DA told him that I had to take the 23 y ear s rig ht the n or they

would ask a jury

for 65 y ear s. He a lso said that if Idecide d on Mo nd ay to p le a d guil ty the 23 wo uld be g on e and Iwo uld have to t a ke 30 y e ars . He als o to ld m e tha

t Mr . Z ipp wa sn ’t

my lawy e r, that he wa s, and that I couldn’t talk to Mr. Z ipp. I p l ed gu i l ty

beca use I knew Mr. Campos wasn’t re ady to go to tria l. I wo u l dn ’t h av e p l edgu i l t y i f M r. Zi p p wa s m y l aw y er , ev en i f we s t i l l h adt o go t o t r i a l o nM o n d ay. Iwas a fra id that with Mr. Campos as m y lawy er I might get 65 y ear s. Since Iwould have to take the 30 y ear s on Monday and wa s afr aid t o ri sk g etting the 65 y e ars , I

too k th e 23 y e ars . Idid no t w ant t o p le a d guil ty

bu t Mr . Ca

mpo s to ld m e Ic ou ldn ’t

e ve n ta lk t o M r . Z i p p an d

p r e s s u r e d

m e t o p l e a d

g u i l t y.
3 Gomez further

testified that Campos advised him to enter a plea of g uilty and to ac cept the of fer of
a tw e nty -t hr e e y e ar s e nte nc e to a

vo id t he ri sk that a jur y wo uld se nte nc e him

to sixty -f ive y e a rs in prison. Gomez pleaded guilty that afte rnoon. 1
DI SCU SSIO N I n a sing le point of err or, Gomez contends that the district court err oneously denied his right to re tain counsel of his c hoice. He claims that this e rr o r is structural and, the ref ore, not
su bje c t to ha

rm ana ly sis
. The c onstitut ions of both the Uni te d St a te s a n d T e xa s c o ntemplate the r ight to counse l of one’ s choosing
. See W heat v. Un i ted States , 4 86 U. S. 1 53 , 1 59 (1 98 8) (c on str uin g sixth4

a me ndme nt of

Un ite d St a te s Co ns tit

uti on ); J on es v . S tat e , 926 S.W .2d 386, 390 (Tex. App.—For t Worth 1996, pet. ref

’d) (construing article I , section 10 of Texas Consti tution). Howeve r, this rig ht is not unqualified or absolute. S e e W heat , 486 U.S. at 159 (explaining that “ the essential a im” of six th amendment o f Un i t ed S tates Constitut ion is “to gua rante e an e ffe ctive advoc ate f or ea ch criminal def

endant r ather

than to ensure that a def

endant will inexorably

be re prese nted by

the lawy er wh om h e pr e fe rs .” ); Es tra da v . S tat e , 406 S.W .2d 448, 449 (Tex. Crim. App. 1966) (quoting United States v. Bentv ena , 3 19 F .2 d 9 16 , 9 36 (2 d Ci r. 19 63 )) (ex pl aini ngthat r ig ht o f a c c us e d to re ta in counsel of c hoice “ cannot be insisted upon or manipulated so as to obstruct the or derly proce dure in the courts or to inter fer e with the fair administration of justice.”). The rig ht to reta in c ounsel of one’s c hoosing “ must be balanc ed with a trial court’s need for prompt and ef ficient a dminist ration of justice.” Ex parte W

indham , 634 S.W .2d 718, 719 (Tex. Crim. App. 1982). The district cour

t ge ner al l y has discre tion to determine whe ther c ounsel should be al l o we d to withdraw fr om a ca se. Se e Br e we r v . S tat e , 649 S.W .2d 628, 631 (Tex. Crim. App. 19 83 ). A dis tr ic t court fa c e s thr e e op tio ns wh e n a def e nd ant ma ke s an “ e le ve nth ho ur ” re qu e st t o
c ha ng e c ouns e l: First, at i t s d i s cr eti on the cour t can a ppoint, or allow the ac cused to re tain, new counsel. Sec ond, should the trial court de ny n ew counsel, and the a ccuse d unequivo cally

asser t his right to self- repr esentation . . . persisting in that asse rtion afte r p ro p er admoni shment, the court must allow the a ccuse d to repre sent himself. Th ir d, un le ss t

he tr ia l c ourt

a llo ws ne w c ouns e l, i t mus t c omp e l an a c c us e d w ho wi ll no t w a ive c ouns e l and

do e s n ot a sse rt

his ri g ht t o s e lf

-r e pr e se ntatio n to pr oc e e d to tr ia l w iththe lawy e r h e ha s, wh e the r h e wa nts to o r n ot.
Bu rg ess v . S

tat e , 816 S.W .2d 424, 428-29 (Te x . Crim. App. 1991) (citations omitted).5 Gomez contends that, by

denying the motion to s ubstitut e, the distric t c o u rt preve nted him from being repr esente d by his prefe rre d couns e l, Z ipp. This posit ion misconstrues the true e ffe ct of the district cour

t’s ruling . The sole c onsequenc e of d en y i n g t h e mot ion to substi tute was that Campos remaine d Gomez’s attorney of re cord f

or the upcoming trial date; it did not preclude Z ipp from joining the defe nse t eam. In fac t, the district court expressly informed both Z ipp and Campos that th e y we re to w or

k out the de ta ils a s to wh o w ou ld r e pr e se nt G ome z at tr ia l, a c kn ow le dg ingthe ir po ssi ble joi nt r e pr e se ntatio n. Go me z ha s only sh ow n tha t Camp os , not t he dis tr ic t c ourt , to ld h im that Z ipp was no long er his lawy er.

The c ourt of cr imi n al appea ls rece ntly reiter ated its support of the district cour t’s authority to deny a request for c hang e in counse l in Kin g v . S tat e , 29 S.W. 3d

55 6, 56 6 ( Te x. Cr im. App. 2000). In King , the district court a ct ed wi t h i n its discretion when it denied the defe ndant’s motion to wit hdrawbased upon a personality conflict between the defe ndant and his l awy er. Id. The court de termined that, de spite the persona lit y conflict, “ substitut ion of counsel c ould have
nece ssitated delay of t he trial” beca use t he appointed counsel had a lrea dy revie wed discove ry

and filed pre -trial motions. Id
.

Simi larly , in the instant case, allowing Campos to withdraw two business day s befor e t r i a l an d a f t e r w o r k i n g o nt h e c a s e f

o r s e v e r a l m o n t h s a l m o s tc e rt a i n l y w o u l d h a v e n e c e s s i t a t e d

d e l a y. At the Thursda

y docket c all, Z ipp did not i n fo rm t he cour t that he would be r eady for tria l the following Monday . I nstead, he filed a motion for c ontinuance to r equest “ proper time for pre paration
on case .” The district c ourt’s challeng ed ruling thus pr otected ag ainst the possibili ty t h at Gomez would be for ced to stand tria l on Monday with an unpre pare d lawy er.6 We also note t hat Gomez ’s m otion to substitut e counsel made no specific claim as to t he ine ff e c tiv e ne ss o f h is a

pp oin te d c ouns e l. B ut e ve n if it h ad, the d ist

ri c t c ourt ’s re fu sa l to appoint new counsel does not constitute err or when the defendant fails to notify the district court of his dissatisfa ction with counsel until the eve of trial. Se e Fo ste r v . S

tat e , 8 1 7 S. W. 2 d

3 9 0 , 3 9 2 ( T e x. App.—B eaumont 1991, no pet.)
. CO NC LU SION

B e c a us e the dis tr ic t c ourt ’s re fu sa l to g ra nt Go me z’s mot ion

to s ub sti tut e c ouns e l di d
no t a br idg e his qu a lif

ie d r ig ht t o b e re pr e se nte d b y c ouns e l of

his c ho ic e , w e a ff

ir m th e jud g me nt.

Be a Ann Smith, J ustice Be fore J ustices B . A. Smith, P atterson a nd Pemberton Affir med Filed: Nove mber 17, 2005 Do No t Pu

bli sh