### IN THE TENTH COURT OF APPEALS
No. 10
- 21
- 00188
- CR JETMIR NOKSHIQI , Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

From the County Court at Law No 2 McLennan County, Texas Trial Court No. 2018
- 2684
- CR2

ABATEMENT ORDER
After a jury found Appellant Jetmir No k shiqi guilty of the misdemea nor offense of assault, the trial court granted Nokshiqi ’ s request for community supervision. Nokshiqi then file d a pro se notice of appeal. Nokshiqi was represented by retaine d counsel in the trial court . T he r ecord
contains no information regarding Nokshiqi ’ s financial status or whether he is entitled to appointed counsel on appeal

. Nokshiqi has additionally not made a written request for the reporter ’ s record.Nokshiqi v. State Page 2 Having reviewed the status of this appeal, we abate this cause to the trial co urt to conduct a hearing to determine whether Nokshiqi wishes to continue this appeal and, if so, whether he is entitled t o appointed appellate counsel. The trial court should also inform Appellant that Appellant will be required to make arrangements for t he reporter ’ s record if Appellant elects to continue this ap peal pro se. An indigent criminal defendant has a constitu tional right to appointed counsel in a first appeal of right. Scott v. State , 80 S.W.3d 184, 197 (Tex. App.

— Waco 2002, pet. ref’d) (citing Douglas v. California , 372 U.S. 353, 356

– 57, 83 S.Ct. 814, 816

– 17, 9 L.Ed.2d 811 (1963)). T he appointment of counse l for an indigent defendant in a criminal case is under the sole authority of the trial court. See Enriquez v. State, 999 S.W.2d 906, 907

– 08 (Tex. App.

— Waco 1999, order) (per curiam); T EX
. C ODE C RIM
. P ROC

. A NN
. art. 26.04(a); cf. Meza v. State, 206 S.W.3d 684, 688 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006). A defendant does not have the right to his choice of appointed counsel, and unless he waives his right to counsel and chooses to represent himself, or shows adequate reason for appointment of new counsel, he must ac cept t he counsel appointed by the trial court. Rodriguez v. State , 491 S.W.3d 18, 33 (Tex. App.

— Houston [1st Dist.] 2016, pet. ref’d). The United States Supreme Court has held that there is no constitutional right to represent oneself on appeal. Martinez v. Co urt of Appeal of California, Fourth Appellate
District , 528 U.S. 152, 163, 120 S.Ct. 684, 692, 145 L.Ed.2d 597 (2000); see Fewins v. State , 170 S.W.3d 293, 295 (Tex. App.

— Waco 2005, order) (per curiam) ( clarifying that “article I, section 10 of the T exas C onstitution does not confer the right of self

- representation afforded by the Sixth Amendment under Faretta ” (footnote omitted)). However, aNokshiqi v. State Page 3 criminal defendant does have a statutory right to self

- representation on appeal. See T EX
. C ODE C RIM
. P ROC

. A NN
. ar t. 1.051(d)(1); see also Sickles v. State , 170 S.W.3d 298, 299 (Tex. App.

— Waco 2005, order) (per curiam)

. S ubsection f of article 1.051 of the Code of Criminal Procedure authorizes a criminal defendant to waive his right to appointed counsel, so long as the waiver is made “voluntarily and intelligently” and “in writing.” T EX
. C ODE C RIM
. P ROC

. A NN
. art. 1.051(f). Once th e right to self

- representation is asserted, the trial judge must inform the defendant about “the dangers and disadvantages of self

- repre sentation,” so that the record will establish that he knows what he is doing and that his choice is made with
eyes open. See id. art. 1.051(g). If the court determines that the criminal defendant has voluntarily and intelligently waived his right to coun sel, the court shall require him to execute a written waiver of counsel which substantially complies with article 1.051( g).
Id. The trial court shall conduct the hearing within 21 days of the date of this Order. The trial court clerk and court reporter s hall file supplemental records within 35 days of
the date of this Order.
PER CURIAM
Before Chief Justice Gray, Justice Johnson, and Justice Smith Order issued and filed November 3, 2021 RWR