Court Opinion

ID: 2921698
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-11 02:25:27.77379+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:56:48.276448
License: Public Domain

NUMBER 13-04-000314-CR

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG
___________________________________________________________________

IN RE CARLOS CRIOLLO
__________________________________________________________________

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus
___________________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Rodriguez and Wittig
 
Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam

         Relator Carlos Criollo filed a petition for writ of mandamus in the above cause
on June 24, 2004.  The Court, having examined and fully considered the petition for
writ of mandamus, is of the opinion that said petition should be denied as it fails to
comply with the appellate rules.  See generally Tex. R. App. P. 52.  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 29th day of June, 2004.