Court Opinion

ID: 2921672
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-11 02:25:09.993209+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:55:26.445589
License: Public Domain

NUMBER 13-04-000346-CR

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG
___________________________________________________________________

IN RE JOSE MURO RODRIGUEZ
__________________________________________________________________

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus
___________________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Rodriguez, Garza, and Wittig
 
Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam

         Relator Jose Muro Rodriguez filed a petition for writ of mandamus in the above
cause on July 6, 2004.  The Court, having examined and fully considered the petition
for writ of mandamus, is of the opinion that relator has not shown himself entitled to
the relief sought.  See Tex. R. App. P. 52.8.  Accordingly, the petition for writ of
mandamus is hereby DENIED.
         The trial court has the responsibility for appointing counsel to represent indigent
defendants, as well as the authority to relieve or replace counsel.  See Enriquez v.
State, 999 S.W.2d 906, 907 (Tex. App.–Waco 1999, no pet.); see also Springer v.
State, 940 S.W.2d 322, 323 (Tex. App.–Dallas 1997, no pet.).  Based upon the
allegations within the petition for writ of mandamus, we suggest that the trial court
cause notice to be given and thereafter conduct a hearing to determine whether
appellant desires to prosecute an appeal; whether appellant is indigent and entitled to
appointed counsel; and whether appointed counsel is adequately representing the
relator or whether other appellate counsel should be appointed to represent relator. 
                                                                        PER CURIAM

Memorandum opinion delivered and filed
this 9th day of July, 2004.