## PD ________

I N THE 

## C OURT OF 

## C RIMINAL 

## A PPEALS

OF 

## T EXAS



## _______________________________________________

J OSHUA 

## L ONDON 

## , Appellant ,

v.
T HE 

## S TATE OF 

## T EXAS 

## , Appellee.

_______________________________________________ On Petition for Discretionary Review from the First Court of Appeals in No. 01-13-00441-CR affirming the conviction in cause number 1367861, From the 230th District Court of Harris County, Texas

_______________________________________________ A PPELLANT 

## ’ S 

## P ETITION FOR 

## D ISCRETIONARY 

## R EVIEW



## _______________________________________________ O RAL 

## A RGUMENT 

## N OT 

## R EQUESTED 

## A LEXANDER 

## B UNIN 

## Chief Public Defender Harris County, Texas J ANI 

## M ASELLI 

## W OOD 

## Assistant Public Defender Harris County, Texas TBN. 00791195 1201 Franklin Street, 13th Floor Houston, Texas 77002 Phone: (713) 368-0016 Fax: (713) 368-9278 Counsel for Appellant January 25, 2015 PD-0480-15

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

AUSTIN, TEXAS Transmitted 4/30/2015 1:46:05 PM Accepted 5/1/2015 10:39:45 AM

ABEL ACOSTA CLERK

## I D E N T IT Y O F 

## P A R T IE S A N D 

## C O U N S E L



## APP ELL ANT: Jos hua Lon do n TDCJ# 018 568 20 Beto Un it 139 1 FM 332 8 Ten ne ss ee Colo ny , TX 758 80

PRE SIDING JUDG E: Ho n. Bra d H art, Pres id in g Judge Ho n. Jim An de rso n, Visi tin g Judge 230 th Di stri ct Co urt Ha rris Coun ty, Tex as 120 1 Fra nk lin , 16 th fl oo r Ho usto n, Tex as 770 02

TRIAL P ROSE CUTOR : M r. Ch ris Mo rton APP ELL ATE PROSE CUTOR : M r. E ric K ugler Ass ista nt Di stri ct Atto rne y Ha rris Coun ty, Tex as 120 1 Fra nk lin , 6th Flo or Ho usto n, Tex as 770 02

DEF ENS E COU NSE L AT TR IAL: M r. Ch arl es A. Bro wn , Jr. 708 Ma in Stree t, Suite 7 Ho usto n, Tex as 770 02

DEF ENS E COU NSE L ON APP EAL : Jan i M as ell i W oo d Ass ista nt P ubli c De fen de r Ha rris Coun ty, Tex as 120 1 Fra nk lin , 13 th F lo or Ho usto n, Tex as 770 02

-2-

## TABLE OF CON TEN TS PA GE

Ide nti ty o f Pa rties

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Ta bl e o f Co nte nts

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Ind ex of A utho ritie s.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Sta teme nt Re gard in g Oral Ar gumen t.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Sta teme nt o f the Cas e.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Sta teme nt o f Pro ce dura l Hi sto ry.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Gro und for Rev

iew

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Th e Court of App ea ls de termi ne d t h a t the co ns titutio na l ch al len ge to the She riff

’s fee s co uld no t be rai se d fo r the firs t time on ap pe al

. Th e ba sis fo r the ch al len ge wa s no t av ai la bl e to M r. Lon do n until 19 da ys af ter the jud gmen t wa s sign ed

. Did the Court of App ea ls err in ref usin g to co ns id er a ch al len ge tha t wa s o nl y a va ila bl e p os t-tri al , in de roga tio n of Lan ders v. S tate ?.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Rea so n fo r Rev

iew

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Sta teme nt o f Fa cts

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Argumen t.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Th e Co urt of Ap pe al s h eld erro r wa s wa ive d.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Th e err or w as pre se rve d b as ed upo n p rec ed en t fro m thi s Co urt..

. . . . . . . . 8 No o bj ec tio n wa s n ec es sa ry in the tria l co urt..

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

-3-

## Pra ye r fo r Rel ief

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Certi fic ate of S erv

ice

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

Certi fic ate of Co mpl ia nc e.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
App en di x .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

-4-

## I N D E X O F 

## A U T H O R IT IE S 

## PAGE

Case s :

Ca rdena s v. S tate , 423 S.W .3 d 3 96 (T ex . Crim . Ap p. 201 4)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Johnson v. Sta te , 423 S.W .3 d 3 85 (T ex . Crim . Ap p. 201 4)..

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Lan ders v. S tate , 402 S.W .3 d 2 52 (T ex . Crim . Ap p. 201 3).

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6, 8, 9

London v. Sta te , 01- 13- 004 41- CR, 2 015 WL 177 858 3 (Tex . Ap p. —H ous ton [1s t Dis t.] Apr. 16, 201 5, no . p et. h. ).

. . . . . . . . . . . . 7

St atu te s an d R ules :

T E X



## . C O D E 

## C R IM



## . P R O C



## . A R T



## . 102 .0 11( A 

## )(3).

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6, 7

T E X



## . R. A P P



## . P. 66. 3(c).

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

-5-

## S T A T E M E N T 

## R E G A R D IN G 

## O R A L 

## A R G U M E N T



## Oral argume nt is no t reques ted

.

S T A T E M E N T O F T H E 

## C A S E



## Th is is an ap pe al fro m a co nv icti on fo r po ss es sio n of co ca in e 1- 4 grams
. (C.R.

at 77). M r. Lon do n pl ea de d guilty with out an agre ed rec omm en da tio n. (C.R. at 66).

Th e jud gmen t ref

lec ts he pl ea de d true to two en ha nc eme nt pa ragra ph s. (C.R. at 77).

Th e co urt rep orte r wa s wa ive d fo r the pl ea as wel l as fo r the se nte nc in g. (C.R. at 106 ).

Th e tria l co urt sen ten ce d M r. Lo nd on to 25 yea rs im pri so nme nt. (C.R. at 77). Th e
tria l co urt di d no t ori gina lly ce rtify M r. Lon do n’ s right to ap pe al

. (C.R. at 94). M r.

Lon do n time ly fil ed a n oti ce of a pp ea l. (C. R. a t 81). Afte r the ca se wa s ab ate d, the

tria l co urt pro vid ed a ne w ce rtifi ca t i o n gi v in g M r. Lon do n pe rmis sio n to ap pe al

. (Supp . C. R. a t 5).

S T A T E M E N T O F T H E 

## P R O C E D U R A L 

## H IS T O R

Y



## In an unp ubli sh ed op in io n, the Firs t Court of App ea ls af firm ed M r. Lon do n’ s

co nv i c t i o n
. London v. Sta te , 01- 13- 004 41- CR, 201 5 W L 177 858 3 (Tex

. App .— Ho usto n [1s t Dis t.] Apr. 16, 201 5, no
. pe t. h. ). No moti on fo r reh ea rin g wa s
fil ed . Th is p etiti on is ti mel y if fil ed on or b efo re M ay

16, 201 5.

-6-

## G R O U N D F O R 

## R E V IE W



## Th e Court of App ea ls de termi ne d t h a t the co ns titutio na l ch al len ge to the She riff

’s fee s co uld no t be rai se d fo r the firs t time on ap pe al

. T h e ba sis fo r the ch al len ge wa s no t av ai la bl e to M r. Lon do n un til 19 da ys af ter the jud gmen t wa s sign ed

. Did the Court of App ea ls err in ref usin g to c on sid er a ch al len ge tha t wa s o nl y a va ila bl e p os t-tri al , in de roga tio n of Lan ders v. S tate ?

R E A S O N F O R 

## R E V IE W


## Th e First Court of App ea ls ha s dec id ed an imp orta nt questio n of state

or fed era l la w in a wa y tha t co nf lic ts with the ap pl ica bl e de cis io ns of the Court of Crim in al App ea ls o r the Supre me Court of the Un ited Sta tes

. T E X



## . R. A P P



## . P. 66. 3(c).

S T A T E M E N T O F 

## F A C T S 

## R E L A T IV E T O 

## G R O U N D 

## R A IS E D



## M r. Lon do n wa s o rd ere d to pa y co urt co sts tota lin g $329 in clud in g a $35

“Summo ni ng W itn es s/ M ile age ” co st. (C

. R

. a t 80). Th e co st bi ll wa s pre pa red

ni ne teen da ys af

ter the jud gmen t wa s fi led . (C.R . a t 77- 80). The re is no reco rd thi s

co st bi ll wa s eve r se nt to M r. Lon do n or hi s atto rne y
. Th e rec ord an d co st bi ll are
sil en t as to wh eth er t h e $3 5 f ee wa s fo r the Sta te’ s sub po en as or the de fen se
sub po en as
. Th e Co de of Cri min al Pro ce dure man da tes the fol lo win g fee : (A) A de fen da nt con vic ted of a felo ny or a mis de mea no r sh all pa y the fo llo win g fee s fo r se rvic es pe rfo rmed in th e ca se by a p ea ce off

ice r: (3) $5 fo r summo ni ng a witn es s.

-7-

## T E X



## . C O D E 

## C R IM



## . P R O C



## . A R T



## . 102 .0 11( A 

## )(3)(em ph as is s upp lie d).

“Summo n i n g W itn es s/ M ile age ” co st is on e of a numb er of co sts tha t co urts
ord er de fen da nts to pa y upo n co nv icti on of a crim e. M r. Lon do n ch al len ged thi s fee

as unco ns titutio na l a s- ap pl ied to h im b ec aus e h e is ind igen t.
The Cou rt of A

pp eals h eld e rror was waiv ed

. Th e Court of App ea ls ref

used to co ns id er thi s ch al len ge, ho ld in g the erro r wa s

wa ive d b ec aus e it wa s n ot ra ise d i n th e tria l co urt:

Lon do n argue s, with littl e mor e ex pl an ati on , tha t arti cle 102 .0 11(a )(3) is
unc on stituti on al as ap p lie d to hi m be ca use he is in di gent. Lon do n di d

no t rai se thi s co mpl ai nt in the tria l co urt. A de fen da nt ma y no t rai se fo r the firs t time on ap pe al an as -a pp lie d ch al len ge to co ns titutio na lity of a sta tute. Curry v. Sta te , 910 S.W .2 d 490 , 496 (Tex .Cri m.Ap p. 199 5). Ho wev er, he argue s tha t und er Johnson v. Sta te , 423 S.W .3 d 3 8 5 ( Tex

. Crim. App .2 014 ), erro r pre se rva tio n is no t require d in thi s circ umsta nc e. In Johnson , the Court of Crimi na l App ea ls he ld tha t a ch al len ge to the fa ctua l ba sis fo r as se ss men t of sta tutory co urt co sts co uld be rai se d fo r the firs t time on ap pe al

. Id . a t 390 . Th e Co urt di d n ot a dd res s wh eth er
a ch al len ge to the co ns titutio na lity of t h e und erly in g sta tute co uld be rai se d fo r the firs t time on ap pe al , an d it di d n o t o v e r rule Curry

. See id

. Bec aus e Lon do n di d no t rai se hi s as -a pp lie d co ns titutio na l ch al len ges in the tria l co urt, we ho ld tha t this iss ue is wa ive d, an d w e o ver rule i t.
London v. Sta te , 20 15 W L 17 785 83, at *4

. The error was pre serv ed bas ed up on pre ced en t from th is Co urt

. Th is Court ex pl ai ne d tha t ch al len ges to c ourt c os ts ca n be rai se d fo r the firs t

time on ap pe al an d “[ c] on vic ted de fen da nts ha ve co ns tructiv e no tice of ma nd ato ry

co urt co sts se t by sta tute an d the op po rtuni ty to ob jec t t o the as se ss men t of co urt

-8-

## co sts aga in st the m fo r the firs t time o n a p p e a l o r in a pro ce ed in g und er Artic le

103 .0 08 of the Tex as Cod e of Crimi na l Pro ce dure .” Ca rdena s v. Sta te , 423 S.W .3 d 396 , 399 (Tex

. Crim. App

. 201 4)

. In a co mpa ni on ca se de cid ed the sa m e d a y , J oh n son v.
Sta te , the Court furth er exp la in ed tha t be ca use the co st bi ll is most likel y unav ai la bl e

at the time of the jud gmen t, an “App ell an t ne ed no t ha ve ob jec ted at tria l to rai se a
cla im ch al len ging the ba se s of as se ss ed co sts on ap pe al .” Johnson v. Sta te , 423 S.W .3 d

385 , 39 1 (Te x. Crim. App . 20 14).

No ob ject ion was ne ces sary in t he trial co urt

. Th is ca se is sim ila r to Lan ders v. Sta te wh ere thi s Cou r t ex pl ai ne d tha t
ch al len ging the co urt co st fo r an atto rne y pro tem co uld be rai se d fo r the firs t time on

ap pe al , h ol di ng:
Sin ce the fee s were no t imp os ed in op en co urt an d sh e wa s no t require d to fil e a moti on fo r ne w tria l, sh e ha s no t f o r f e ited the co mpl ai nt on ap pe al

.
Lan ders v. Sta te , 402 S.W .3 d 252 , 255 (Tex

. Crim. App

. 201 3). In Lan ders , the co st bi ll

wa s a va ila bl e si x d ay s a fter the jud gmen t an d th is Co urt exp la in ed :
No n oti ce of th is d oc umen t wa s giv en to th e a pp ell an t or h er a ttorn ey an d no furth er pro ce ed in gs were he ld

. Con se quen tly, the ap pe lla nt wa s no t giv e n a n o p po rtuni ty to ob jec t to the imp os itio n of the se co sts

. Sin ce sh e wa s no t give n the op po rtuni ty, the ab se nc e of an ob jec tio n is
no t fa tal to h er a pp ea l.

-9-

## Lan ders, 402 S.W .3 d at 255

. Th is Court wen t on to de cla r e t h a t L a n de rs wa s no t

require d to ob jec t in a motio n for new trial be ca use there wa s no noti ce the co st bi ll

ha d eve r be en cre ate d an d it wo uld “all ow a jud ge to de fa cto al ter the sta tutory time

fra me f or mo tio ns for ne w tria l.” Lan ders , 40 2 S. W .3 d a t 255

. Th e co st bi ll in thi s ca se wa s cre ate d on M ay 22, 201 3, wh ich wa s 19 da ys af ter
the jud gmen t wa s en tere d on M ay 3, 201 3. (C.R. 77- 80). Th is Court ha s he ld tha t M r.

Lon do n wa s no t require d to fil e a moti on fo r ne w tria l in or d er to pre se rve hi s
ch al len ge. Th e Co urt of Ap pe al s er red in d eter min in g this iss ue wa s un pre se rve d.

P R A Y E R F O R 

## R E L IE F



## F o r the rea so ns sta tes ab ov e, M r. Lon do n pra ys tha t thi s Court gran t h i s

pe titio n a nd rema nd to the Court of App ea ls fo r co ns id era tio n of the meri ts of Mr.

Lon do n’ s ch al len ge to th e $35 S he riff ’s fee

.

-10-

## Res pe ctful ly s ubmi tted , Ja ni Ma sell

i W ood

__ __ __ __

__ __ __ __ __

__ __ __ __ __ __ _ JANI J. M ASE LLI W OOD Ass ista nt P ubli c De fen de r Ha rris Coun ty, Tex as Jan i.M as ell i@p do .h ctx .n et TBN . 00 791 195 120 1 Fra nk lin Stree t, 13 th F lo or Ho usto n, Tex as 770 02 Ph on e: (713 ) 368 -0 016 Fa x: (713 ) 368 -9 278

Attorn ey for App ell an t Jos hua Lon do n

-11-

## C E R T IF IC A T E O F 

## S E R V IC E



## Purs uan t to Tex

. R. App

. Pro c. 9. 5, thi s ce rtifi es tha t on Apri l 30, 201 5, a co py of the

fo rego in g wa s ema ile d to Lis a M cM in n, Sta te Pr o s e c uting Attorn ey , an d the Ha rris

Coun ty Dis trict Atto rne y’ s Off ice thro ugh tex fil e. co m at th e fo llo win g ad dr es s:
Eri c K ugler Ass ista nt Di stri ct Atto rne y 120 1 Fra nk lin Stree t, 6th Flo or Ho usto n, TX

770 02 kugler _e ric @d ao .h ctx .n et

Lis a M cM in n Lis a. M cM in n@S PA. tex as .go v Ja ni Ma sell i W ood

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

__ __ __ __ __ __ __

_ JANI J. M ASE LLI W OOD

-12-

## CERT IFICATE OF COM PLIANCE

Purs uan t to pro po se d Rule 9. 4( i ) (3), und ers igne d co uns el ce rtifi es tha t thi s

pe titio n co mpl ies with the typ e- vo lume limi tati on s of T E X



## . R. A P P



## . P R O C



## . 9. 4( I 

## )(2)(D).

1. Ex clus ive of the po rtio ns ex emp ted by T E X



## . R. A P P



## . P R O C



## . 9. 4 ( I 

## )(1), thi s

pe titio n c on tai ns 112 8 wo rd s p rin ted in a pro po rtio na lly sp ac ed typ efa ce
.
2. Th is pe titio n is pri nte d in a pro po rtio na lly sp ac ed , se ri f t y p e f a ce usin g
Ga ram on d 14 po in t fo nt in tex t an d Ga ram on d 14 po in t fo nt in fo otn ote s pro duc ed by Core l W ord Per fec t so ftwa re.
3. Un de rsi gned co u ns el und ers tan ds tha t a ma teria l mis rep res en tati on in

co mpl etin g thi s ce rtifi ca te, or circ umve nti on of the typ e- vo lume limi ts in Tex. R. Ap p.

Proc. 9. 4(j) , ma y res ult in the Court' s stri kin g thi s bri ef an d imp os in g sa nc tio ns aga in st
the pe rso n wh o s igne d i t.

Ja ni Ma sell i W ood

__ __ __ __

__ __ __ __ __

__ __ __ __ __ JANI J. M ASE LLI W OOD

-13-

## Ap pe nd ix A
Opi ni on London v. Sta teLon don v. State, Not Rep orted in S.W .3d (201 5)

2015 WL 1778583 Only t he Westlaw citat ion is currently available.

SEE TX R R

AP RULE 47.2 FOR DESIGNATION AND SIGNING OF OP INIONS.

DO NOT PU BLISH. TE X. R. APP . P. 47.2 (B).

Court o f Appeals of Texas, Hou ston (1 st Dist.

Joshua Lond on, Appellant

v. The State of Texas, Appellee NO. 01–13–00441 –CR | Opini on issued A

pril 16, 2 015

On A pp eal from the 23 0th District Court, Harr is Coun ty , T exas, T rial Court Case No . 1 36 78 61

Atto rneys a nd Law Firm s

Ja ni J. Wo od , for Jo shu a London.

A lan Curry, Eric Kug l e r , Devon A nderson , for T he State of T exas. P anel consists of Justices Je nn ing s , Masseng ale , and Br ow n

.

M EM ORANDUM OP INION

Michael Massengale , J ust ice

*1 A pp ellant Jo shu a L ondo n plead ed gu ilty to po ssess ion of

a contro lled substan ce (co caine) in an am ount betw een o ne and four gram s, w ithout an agreed reco m m endation as to punis hm ent. See T ex. Health & Safety Code §§ 48 1.1 02 (3 )(D) , 48 1.1 12 (c)

. London electe d senten cing by the trial co ur t , and he plead ed true to enh ancem ent allegations t hat he w as pr eviously convicted of the felony offense s o f “ ba i l j um ping” and “ evading.” T he trial court senten ced London to 25 y ears in pr ison and sig ned an or der to w ithdraw fu nds from his inm ate trust acco un t for the purp ose of pay ing his court costs. See T ex. P enal Code §§ 12 .32 , 12 .33 , 12 .42 (b )

. London filed a pr o se notice o f ap peal, along w ith

m otio ns for bail and to w ithdraw his gu ilty plea. on app eal, London argues that he w as not adeq uately rep resented during

a critical stage of the pr ocee dings , the m otio n for new tr ial stage. He also argues that the statut o r y sheriff ' s w itness fees

are un constitu tional as ap plied to him

.
London did n ot reb ut the pr esum ptio n of rep resentation, an d he w aived his as-applied constitu tional challeng e by failin g to raise it in the trial co urt. W e affirm

.

Ba ck gro und

T w o day s after London' s arr est for po ssess ion of a contro lled substan ce, the trial court foun d that he w as un able to aff or d an attor ney and app ointed counsel to rep resent him

. London initially plead ed not gu ilty , but after a j ury w as im paneled he chang ed his plea to gu ilty , w ithout an agreed reco m m endation

a s to punis hm ent. T he trial court foun d him gu ilty and

assess ed punis hme nt at 25 y ears in pr ison. T hat sam e day , London' s attorney

subm itted a fee vouch er for pa y m ent.

T w elve day s after the trial court's j udgm e nt , London filed a pr o se notice of app e a l a nd a m otio n to w ithdraw his gu ilty plea. His no tice of app eal w as a han dw ritten do cum ent in

w hich he m ade gen eral allegations abo ut his co un se l' s deficient per form ance and the fairne ss of the senten ce im po sed by the court. T he reco rd also inclu des a form notice of app eal, b ut it w as not sign ed by either London or his trial counsel. T he pr epr inted form inclu des check bo xes to indicate

w heth er the “un der sig ned atto rney ” “m oves to w ithdraw ” o r
w ill continu e to rep resent the defendant on app eal. T he bo x for “ m oves to w ithdraw ” w as checked, but the lines pr ovided for an attor ney ' s sig natu

re and contact inf

or m ation are blank. Sim ilarly , three bo xes w ere checked indicating that London

w as indigen t, w ish ed to have a co urt- app ointed attorney an d

a free cop y of the reco rd , a nd r e q uested bail. On the line pr ovided for the defendant' s sig natu re, the w or ds “ in custody ”

w ere w ritten by hand.

London' s m otio n to w ithdraw his guil ty plea alleged that his counsel w as defici e nt beca use he failed to take “ aff irm ative actions to pr eserve and pr otect” his “ valu able rights ,” review

© 2015 T hom son Reuters. No claim to origi nal U.S . Governm ent W ork s. 15 

### -15-Lon don v. State, Not Rep orted in S.W .3d (201 5)

t he c ase w ith him outside of court pr ocee dings , ob j ect t o pr osecutoria l actions, and intro duce evidence and testim ony
on his behalf. London also alleged that “[ t ] he re app eared to be per sonal bias and/or pr ej udice agains t” him , there w a s a
reaso nable pr ob ability that the result o f the trial w ould hav e been diff erent but for his counsel' s err or s, he “ w as nev er able to w or k w ith, assist , or even place his trust w ith counsel,” and his counsel “ dem eaned” him

. Finally , he stated that his gu ilty plea w as not intellig ent and volun tary beca use hig hly pr e j ud icial pr ior convictions w ere im pr op erly used agains t him and the c ourt “ failed t o t a ke steps to assu re [him ] a fair op po rtunit

y t o pr esent [a] defense.” T he m otio n w as not verified or acco m

panied by an aff

idavit or sw or n state m ent settin g forth a factu al basis to suppor t his m otio n. T he reco rd do es not inclu de a ruling on the m otio n to w ithdraw the gu ilty plea, nor do es it inclu de a mo tion to w ithdraw from rep resentation sign ed by

trial c ounsel.

*2 T his court abate d the app eal t o allow the trial court to
cor rect an err or in the certification of London' s right to app eal. A pp ro xim ately three m onths afte r London filed the
m otio n to w ithdraw his gu ilty plea and a notice of app eal, the t r i a l court held an abate m ent hearing

. London and his tri a l counsel app eared at the hearing

. London confirmed that he
w ish ed to pursue his app eal. During an exchan ge betw e en London' s counsel and the court per tainin g to the certification of the right to app eal, the attor ney stated, “ I'v e told m y client they ' ll app oint an attor ney for him .” T he trial court app ointed
a p pellate counsel and certified the right to app eal, and w e reinstated the ap peal.
Analy sis

London raises tw o issu es on app eal. He argues that he w as not rep resented d ur i ng t he m otio n for new trial stage, a critical stage of t he pr ocee dings

. He fu rther contends that the statut or y w itness fee, as app lied to h im , violated his rights to confrontation and co m

pulsory pr ocess.

I. Adequacy of

representa tion during m ot ion f or new tria l stag e London argues that he w as un rep resented d uring the 30 –d ay per iod after entry of j udgm ent during w hich he could hav e filed a m otio n for new trial. T o suppor t this con tention, he relies o n t he follow ing facts: (1 ) his attor ney subm itted a vouch er for pay m ent on the day of the trial court's j udgm ent, (2 ) he filed his ow

n notice of app eal and m otio n to w ithdraw his gu ilty plea, and (3 ) an un sig ned m otio n to w ithdraw dated 19 day s after the trial court's j udgm ent app ears in the reco rd

. A m otio n for new trial m ust be filed no later than 30 day s after a trial court “ im

po ses or sus p e nd s se nten ce in op en court.” T ex. R. A

pp

. P

. 21 .4( a)

. T his is “ a critical stage of the pr ocee dings ” during

w hich a defendant “ has a consti tutional
r i gh t to counsel.” Cooks v. Sta te, 24 0 S.W. 3d 90 6, 91 1 (T ex.Crim .App.2 00 7)

. When a d e fendant is rep resented by counsel during a trial, there is “ a reb uttable pr esum ptio n that this coun sel continu ed to adeq uately rep resent the defendant during this critical stage.” Id

. “ T he reb uttable pr esum ptio n of adeq uate rep resentation arises, in par t, beca use app ointed counsel rem ains as the defendant' s counsel for all purp oses un til expressly per m itted to w ithdraw , even if the app ointm ent is for trial only .” S

m a l l wood v. Sta te, 29 6 S.W. 3d 72 9, 73 4 (T ex. A pp .— H o us ton [1 4th Dist.] 20 09 , no pet.) ; see T ex. Code Crim. P ro c. art. 26 .04 (j )(2 ) (“A n attor ney app ointed
un der this subsection shall

... rep resent the defendant un til charges are dism issed, the defendant is acquitted, app eals are exh austed, or the attor ney is per m itted or or der ed by the court to w ithdraw as counsel for the defendant after a fi nd ing of good cause is entered on the reco rd .”).

T he app ellant has the burd en to pr od uce evidence to reb ut the pr esum ptio n of continu ed adeq uate rep resentation. Green v

. S tate, 26 4 S.W. 3d 63 , 69 (T ex.A pp .—Houston [1 st Dist. ] 20 07 , pet. ref' d)

. A pr o se fili ng , w ithout m or e, is ins uf ficien t to reb ut the pr esum

ptio n of rep resentation beca use rather than conclusiv ely establishin g a lack of rep resentation, it raises the issu e o f hy

br id rep resentation. Id

. at 70

. T o reb ut the pr esum ptio n of continu ed adeq uate rep resentation, the app ellant m

ust pr od uce evide nc e t hat his attor ney did not advise him abo ut the po tential m erits of a m otio n for new trial
o r abo ut his app ellate rights

. See Oldh am v. Sta te, 9 7 7 S.W. 2d 35 4, 36 3 (T ex.Crim .App.1 99 8)

. A n app ellant' s pr o se fili ng of a notice of app eal, w hich show s he had kn ow ledge of the app ellate pr ocess and dead lines, has been held to suppor t
a pr esum ptio n that his counsel inf

or m ed him of his rights

. See Bea rman v. Sta te, 42 5 S.W. 3d 32 8, 33 0 (T ex.A pp .—Houston [1 st Dist.] 2 01 0, pet. ref' d)

.

*3 In add ition, an app ellant w ho do es success fu lly reb ut the pr esum ptio n of rep resentation during the m otio n for new trial per iod m ust show that he w as harm ed. Cooks, 24 0 S.W. 3d at 91 1. In a m otio n for new trial a defendant m ay raise matters not deter m inable from the reco rd and establish grounds upon w hi c h he m ay be entitled to relief. See Hob bs v. Sta te, 29 8 S.W. 3d 19 3, 19 9 (T ex.Crim .App.2 00 9)

. For exam ple, a defendant could argue in a m otio n for new trial that his gu ilty p l e a w as inv oluntary based on err oneous inf or m ation convey ed by his counsel. See Sta rz v. Sta te, 30 9 S.W. 3d 11 0, 11 8 (T ex.A

pp .—Houston [1 st Dist.] 2 00 9, pet. ref' d)

. A n app ellant also can dem onstrate ha r m from the lack of adeq uate rep resentation during the m otio n for new trial stage

© 2015 T hom son Reuters. No claim to origi nal U.S . Governm ent W ork s. 16 

### -16-Lon don v. State, Not Rep orted in S.W .3d (201 5)

by show ing that he has a “ facially plausible” claim that could hav e been raised in a m otio n for new trial. See Cooks, 24 0 S.W. 3d at 9 11 –1 2.

Conv ersely , a conclusory allegation that trial counsel failed to
c a l l o r s u b p o e n a w i t n e s s e s o r c o n d u c t a n inv estigation—w ithout settin g forth w hat e xcu lpato ry facts
w ould have be en elicited o r d eterm ined—is not suf ficien t t o raise a facially plausible claim of inef fectiv e assist ance of counsel. See Cooks, 24 0 S.W. 3d at 91 2; Bea rman, 42 5 S.W. 3d at 33 1; Ex pa rte Ram irez, 28 0 S.W. 3d 8 4 8 , 85 3 (T ex.Crim .App.2 00 7) (p er curiam ) (d efen dant challenging trial counsel's failu

re to call a par ticular w itness m ust show that w itness w as available to testif y and testim ony w ould hav e benefited him ); Sto kes v. S t a t e , 29 8 S.W. 3d 42 8, 43 2 (T ex.A pp .—Houston [1 4th Dist.] 20 09 , pet. ref' d) (d efen dant cha lleng ing trial counsel' s failu re to inv estigate m

ust show

“ w hat the in vestig ation w ould hav e revealed th at rea sonably could have chang ed the result of the case”).

In this case, London w as rep resented by app ointed counsel at trial. T he r e cor d do es not conclusiv ely dem onstrate that his counsel m oved to w ithdraw from rep resentation. T he o nly
m otio n to w ithdraw app earing in the reco rd w as not sig ned by London, hi s trial counsel, or the tr ial court j udge. T he Code of Crim inal P ro cedure req uires plead ing s and m ot ions filed
on behalf of a defenda nt to be sig ned. See T ex. Code Crim

. P ro c. art. 1.0 52

. London argues that if the un sig ned m ot i o n

“ has any m eaning ” then he “ w as definitely denied counsel for 11 da y s of the 30 da y

m otio n perio d.” W e d ecline to im pute t o London' s counsel an un sig ned form notice of app eal sig nif y ing a m otio n to w ithdraw

. Cf. id. art. 1.0 52

. Even if the form w as checked and filed by the a ttorney , the r ecor d do es not indicate that a motion to w ithdraw w as granted.

London argues that his trial counsel' s subm ission of a fee pay m ent vouch er show s that he w as un rep resented during the
m otio n for new trial st a ge

. A lthoug h the vouch er itself do es not app ear in the reco rd , the do cket sheet indicates that London' s counsel subm itted a req uest for pay m ent on the date t ha t j udgm ent w as render ed. Subm ission of a vouch er fo r pay m ent of fees is n ot o ne of the w ay s the Code o f Crim inal P ro cedure p ro vides for term inatin g rep resentation w hen an attor ney is app ointed by the court to r e p r e sent an indigen t defendant. See i d

. art. 26 .04 (j )(2 ). T his fact alone do es not dem onstrate that London' s counsel stopp ed rep resenting him at that tim e, especially in ligh t of the reco rd w hich do es no t show that London' s couns e l w as expressly per m itted to
w ithdraw pr ior to the abate m ent hearing

. See Sma llwood
, 29 6 S

. W

. 3 d at 73 4. London' s trial counsel app eared at the abate m ent hearing and told the court that he had inf or m ed his

“ client” that he w ould be app ointed new co un sel for app eal. T his le a d s to a reaso nable conclusion that at the tim e of the abate m ent hearing , L ondo n' s trial coun sel considere d him to be a c lient and had continu ed to giv e him legal advice. Neither the a ttorney fee vouch er nor the un sig ned m otio n to
w ithdraw reb ut the pr esum ptio n that London w as rep resented during the mo tion for new trial stage. See Oldh am, 97 7 S.W. 2d at 3 63

. *4 London also argues that his pr o se notice o f a pp eal and
m otio n to w ithdr a w hi s gu ilty plea show that he w as un rep resented. He urges us to follow Prud ho mme v. Sta te, 28 S.W. 3d 11 4 (T ex.A

pp .—T exarkana 20 00 , no pet.) , abate his app eal, and rem and the case for the fili ng of a m otio n for new trial. T his is pr ob lem atic for tw o reaso ns. First, in Prud ho mme, the T exarkana court o f a p peals held that a defendant' s pr o se mo t i on to w ithdraw his gu ilty plea w as eff ectively a pr o se m otio n for new trial, the fili ng of w hich reb utted the pr esum

ptio n that he w as adeq ua t ely counseled abo ut his app ellate rights

. See Prud ho mme, 28 S.W. 3d at 12 0. In Green v. Sta te, 26 4 S.W. 3d 63 (T ex.A pp .—Houston [1 st Dist] 20 07 , pet. ref' d) , this court rej ected Pr u d h o m me ' s holding that a pr o se m otio n fo r new trial reb uts the p r e sum ptio n of continu ed rep resentation by trial counsel beca use a “ pr o se fili ng , w ithout m or e, raises t he issu e of hy br id rep resentation, not a lack of rep resentation.” Gree n , 26 4 S. W. 3d at 7 0.

T he second pro blem atic aspect of London's argum ent is th at his case is factu ally disti ng ui shab le from Prud ho mme, in
w hich the pr o se m otio n for new trial set forth a factu al basis for the defendant' s claim of inef fectiv e assist ance of counsel. Prud ho mme, 28 S.W.3 d a t 12 0– 21 . P rudhom m e argu ed that he w ould not hav e plead ed gu ilty bu t for his counsel' s err oneous advice that he w ould be giv en a pr ob ated senten ce, a circum stance t hat the court of app eals labeled “ a facially plausible claim that his gu ilty plea w a s inv oluntary .” Id

. Conv ersely , London has not a ss e rted a facially plausible claim that shoul d have be en raised in a m otio n f or new trial. London' s pr o se m otio n to w ithdraw his gu ilty plea consists of conclusory , gen eral assertions that am ount to allegations of failu re to invest igate and pr offer evidence on his behalf. His
m otio n do es not set forth a ny factu al basis for these allegations: he do es not po int out any po tentially exculpatory evi d e nc e or identify any w itness es w ho could hav e testif

ied
on his behalf and sum

m arize w hat w ould ha ve been the substan ce of their testim ony

. London' s conclusory allegations
are not suf

ficien t to raise a faci a lly plausible claim of inef fectiv e assist ance of cou ns el. See Cooks, 24 0 S.W. 3d at 91 1– 12 (holding tha t dep rivation of counsel during m otio n for new trial stage w as “ harm less bey ond a reaso nable do ubt” beca use d efen dant did not raise a facially plausible claim of i ne ffe ctive assist ance of counsel); Bea rman, 42 5 S.W. 3d at 33 1.

T houg h L ondo n' s pro se filin gs m ay raise an issu e of hy br id rep resentation, they

also d em onstrate that London h ad som e

© 2015 T hom son Reuters. No claim to origi nal U.S . Governm ent W ork s. 17 

### -17-Lon don v. State, Not Rep orted in S.W .3d (201 5)

kn ow ledge of his app ellate rights an d su pp or t a pr esum

ptio n that his trial counsel advised him abo ut the app ellate tim eline. See Bea rman, 42 5 S.W. 3d at 33 0; Green, 264 S.W. 3d at 70

. We conclude that London' s m otio n to w ithdraw his gu ilty plea do es not reb ut the pr esum

ptio n that he w as rep resented during the m otio n for new trial stage, and w e overr ule his first issu e. II. As-applied cha llenge t o sta tuto ry fees In his second issu e, London argues that, as app lied to him , the
asse ss m ent of $3 5 in statut or y w itness fees violated the Conf ro nt a t i on Claus e and the right to com pulsory pr ocess. A rticle 10 2.0 11 of the Code of Crim inal P ro cedure sets forth statut or y fees for services per form ed by a peac e offi cer w hich
are to be paid by a defendant convicte d o f a felony or m isdem eanor. T ex. C od e C rim

. P ro c. art. 10 2.0 11

. A m ong other thin gs, it im

po ses a fee of $5 for sum

m oning a w itness

. Id

. art. 10 2.0 11 (a) (3 ). T his pr ovision assess es $5 each tim e a w itness is sum

m oned. See Ram irez v. Sta te, 41 0 S.W. 3d 35 9, 36 6 (fin ding $1 00 fee for sum m oning w itness es w a s suppor ted by

s uf ficien t evidence w

hen rec or d show ed that it
w as incurred 2 0 tim es).

A crim inal d efen dant has the right to b e co nf ro nted w ith the
w itness es agains t him and the right to com pulsory pr ocess for ob tainin g w itness es in his fav or

. U.S. Const., am ends. VI & XIV ; T ex. Const. art. I, § 10 ; T ex. Code Crim

. P ro c. art. 1.0 5

. London argues, w ith littl e more explanation, that article 102.0 11 (a) (3 ) is un constitu tional as app lied to him beca use h e is indigen t. London did not raise this com plaint in the trial court. A de fen dant m ay

not ra ise for the first tim e on app eal
an as-applied challeng e to constitu tionality of a statut e. Curry
v. Sta te, 91 0 S.W. 2d 49 0, 49 6 (T ex.Crim .App.1 99 5)

. How ever, he argues that un der Joh nson v. Sta te, 42 3 S.W. 3d 38 5 (T ex.Crim .App.2 01 4) , err or pr eservation is not req uired in this circum st a nc e. In Joh nson , the Court of Crim inal A pp eals held that a challeng e to t he factual basis for
assess m ent of statut or y court costs could be raised for the first tim e on app eal. Id

. at 39 0. T he Court did not add ress w heth er a challeng e to the c onstitu tionality of the un der ly ing statut e could be raised for the first tim e o n a pp eal, and it did not
overr ule Curry. S e e i d

. Bec ause London did not raise his as-applied constitu tional challeng es in the trial court, w e hold that thi s issu e is w aived, a nd w e o verrule it.

Conclusion

*5 W e affirm

the j udgm ent of the trial co urt.

End of Do cum ent © 20 15 Thomson R euters. No clai m t o origin al U.S. Go ver nm ent Wo rks.

© 2015 T hom son Reuters. No claim to origi nal U.S . Governm ent W ork s. 18 

### -18-