Abatement Order filed November 29 , 20 11

.

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________ NO. 14

- 11

- 0 0 433

- CR

____________ ANTHONY WHITNEY NORM AN , Appellant

V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 262nd District Court

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 1248767



### A B A T E M E N T O R D E R
Appellant is represented by appointed counsel, Angela L Cameron, of the Harris County Public Defender’s Office. On October 11 , 2011, appellant filed a motion to dismiss his app ointed attorney and to proceed pro se on appeal. Neither counsel for appellant or for the State have filed a response to the motion.
When a criminal appellant waives his right to appointed counsel, he waives many
traditional benefits associated with the right to counsel. Before an appellant may dismiss appointed counsel and proceed pro se , the waiver must be “knowingly and intelligently”
made. See Faretta v. California , 95 S.Ct. 2525; 422 U.S. 806, (1975).2

In Martinez v. California
, 528 U.S. 152, 120 S.Ct. 684 (2000), the United States Supreme Court reaffirmed its holding that criminal defendants have a constitutional right to conduct their own defense at trial, if they voluntarily and intelligently elect to do so; however, the Court then held that cr iminal defendants have no federal constitutional right to represent themselves on direct appeal from a conviction. 120 S.Ct. at 686

- 92. The
Court added that appellate courts may, in the exercise of their discretion, allow a defendant to proceed pro se on appeal based on the best interests of the defendant and the government. Id. a t 691

- 92. In other words, criminal defendants have no feder al constitutional right to self

- representation on direct appeal, but states are not precluded from recognizing such a right under their own constitutions. Id

.
This c ourt has adopted the standard established in Martinez, and we review reque sts to proceed pro se on a case

- by

- case basis considering the best interests of both the criminal appellant and the State. See Hadnot v. State , 14 S.W.3d 348, 349 (Tex. App.

— Houston [14th Dist.] 2000) (order) ; Massingill v. State, 14 S.W.3d 380, 381 (Tex. App.

— Houston [14th Dist.] 2000) (order) . In this case, appellant asserts that appointed counsel has not submitted any proposed motions or brief for his review and a conflict of interest has arisen. Accordingly, we issue the following order.
WE ORDER the Judge of the 262nd District Court, to immediately conduct a hearing at which appellant , either in person or by videoteleconfere nce, appellant’ s appointed attorney, and the State’ s counsel shall be present to determine: (1) whether appellant desires to prosecute his appeal; (2) whether appellant wishes to discharge his appointed attorney and proceed with his appeal pro se ; (3) whet her the waiver of assistance of counsel is made voluntarily, knowingly and intelligently; (4) whether appellant ’ s decision to proceed pro se is in the best interest of appellant and of the State; and (5) whether appellant is fully aware of the dangers and disadvantages of self

- representation. See Funderburg v. State , 717 S.W.2d 637 (Tex. Crim. App. 1986); Webb v. State , 533 S.W.2d 780 (Tex. Crim. App. 1976); Trevino v. State , 555 S.W.2d 750 (Tex. Crim. App. 1977).3

WE FURTHER ORDER the Judge of the 262nd D istrict Court to have a court reporter present to prepare a reporter ’ s record. The reporter ’ s record, and a supplemental
clerk ’ s record containing the trial court ’ s findings, shall be filed with the Clerk of this c ourt on or before December 30, 2011

.
The appeal is abated, treated as a clos ed case, and removed from this c ourt ’ s active docket. The app eal will be reinstated on this c ourt ’ s active docket when the trial court ’ s findings and recommendations ar e filed in this court. The c ourt will also consider an appropriate motion to reinstate the appeal filed by either party, or the c ourt may reinstate the appeal on its own motion. It is the responsibility of any party seeking reinstatement to request a hearing date from the trial court and to schedule a h ea ring in compliance with this

c ourt ’ s order. If the parties do not request a hearing, the court coordinator of the trial court shall set a hearing date and notify the parties of such date.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Hedges and Justices An derson and Christopher.