Court Opinion

ID: 9755214
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-28 20:30:27.106291+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:28:05.289583
License: Public Domain

HOLLIS HORTON, Justice,
dissenting.
The majority holds that because appeal was an adequate remedy for Cherry’s choice-of-counsel complaint, he is now barred from challenging the trial court’s original decision denying his choice of counsel. I disagree that appeal is a sufficient remedy for three reasons.
First, the trial court’s findings from the habeas hearing are important to the resolution of whether Cherry was wrongfully deprived of his choice of counsel at his sentencing hearing. The trial court that conducted the habeas hearing after our remand found:
[Ujpon further reflection, including review of the additional evidence of the transcript of the September 12, 2005 hearing, that allowing Cherry to replace his legal counsel as initially requested eight (8) days prior to his sentencing *298hearing on September 16, 2005, would not have adversely affected the integrity of the judicial process or the fair and orderly administration of justice.
The majority’s decision effectively forces Cherry to rely on an attorney he did not want to represent him to create a record sufficient for his appeal; however, Cherry’s attorney during the sentencing hearing failed to do so here. Under the majority’s logic, even had Cherry perfected an appeal, he would be required to await the imposition of a sentence and the outcome of his appeal before he could enforce his right to his counsel of choice. This would all be done under the premise that the trial court’s order denying the attorney’s discharge would be reversed on a record that existed at that time, a record which we previously held was insufficient to determine whether the trial court erred in denying his choice of counsel. Ex parte Cherry, 232 S.W.3d 305, 307-08 (Tex.App.-Beaumont 2007, pet. ref'd). Even if his appeal proved successful, only after being forced to suffer a trial result procured by an attorney not of his choice, according to the majority, Cherry would then have the privilege of retrying his case.
Such a procedure is unreasonable and unjust to the parties. See generally Terrell v. Greene, 88 Tex. 539, 31 S.W. 631, 634 (1895) (holding that right of remedy on appeal was inadequate to address issue concerning which attorney would represent a party, thus extending relief by writ of mandamus). I would hold that remedying Cherry’s choice-of-counsel complaint was not possible in an ordinary appeal under the facts of this case.
Second, the attorney the trial court required to represent Cherry failed to perfect an appeal and the appellate deadlines on his case expired. Therefore, section 11.072, section 3(a) of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure does not apply to him because Cherry could not obtain adequate relief through an appeal at the point he filed his application for writ of habeas corpus. The majority reads that language of section 11.072 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to restrict habeas relief if an appeal could have remedied the error. But the statute in issue restricts relief through habeas only when “the applicant could obtain the requested relief by means of an appeal.” Tex.Code CRIM. PROC. Ann. art. 11.072 § 3(a) (Vernon 2005). Cherry could not obtain relief on appeal at the point he filed his writ of habeas corpus.
Third, the right to assistance of counsel in criminal cases is guaranteed by both the United States and Texas constitutions, as well as by Texas statute. See U.S. Const. amend. VI; Tex. CONST, art I, § 10; Tex. Code Crim. Proo. Ann. art. 1.05 (Vernon 2005). The United States Supreme Court regards the right to select counsel of one’s choice “as the root meaning of the constitutional guarantee.” U.S. v. Gonzalez-Lopez, 548 U.S. 140, 147-48, 126 S.Ct. 2557, 165 L.Ed.2d 409 (2006). Choice of counsel is an important right, as right-to-counsel issues are analyzed as “structural error.” Id. at 148-49, 126 S.Ct. 2557; see also Johnson v. State, 169 S.W.3d 223 (Tex. Crim.App.2005) “A structural error affects ‘the framework within which the trial proceeds, rather than simply [being] an error in the trial process itself.’ ” Johnson, 169 S.W.3d at 237 (quoting Arizona v. Fulminante, 499 U.S. 279, 310, 111 S.Ct. 1246, 113 L.Ed.2d 302 (1991)). “The right to assistance of counsel contemplates the defendant’s right to obtain assistance from counsel of the defendant’s choosing.” Gonzalez v. State, 117 S.W.3d 831, 836-37 (Tex.Crim.App.2003).
Right-to-counsel issues that arise under the Sixth Amendment are traditionally addressed in criminal cases through writs of habeas corpus. See Robinson v. State, 16 *299S.W.3d 808, 810 (Tex.Crim.App.2000) (post conviction writ is the preferred method for “gathering the facts necessary to substantiate such a Sixth Amendment challenge”); Ex parte Torres, 943 S.W.2d 469, 475 (Tex.Crim.App.1997) (“[I]n most ineffective assistance claims, a writ of habeas corpus is essential to gathering the facts necessary to adequately evaluate such claims.”). After the record was further developed by the trial court at Cherry’s habeas hearing, the trial couit apparently agreed that Cherry had been wrongly deprived of his right to choice of counsel at his prior sentencing hearing. The trial court’s findings following the habeas hearing remedied the problem with Cherry’s inadequate record that existed when we initially reviewed this matter and then remanded his case for further development of the record. Ex parte Cherry, 232 S.W.3d at 307-08. Thus, the appeal on the record that is currently available containing factual findings central to Cherry’s case would not have been available in an ordinary appeal.
Under the Texas Constitution, the Texas legislature is not empowered to suspend the writ of habeas corpus. Tex. Const, art. I, § 12 (“The writ of habeas corpus is a writ of right, and shall never be suspended.”). In my opinion, the majority interprets article 11.072 section 3(a) to suspend the writ of habeas corpus for challenges touching upon the type of structural error for which writs of habeas corpus provide a traditional remedy.
In summary, I disagree with the majority’s conclusion that the record, as it existed for a hypothetical appeal, would have allowed Cherry to obtain relief. Second, when Cherry’s chosen counsel finally challenged the trial court’s decision through a writ of habeas corpus, Cherry’s right to appeal no longer provided a potential remedy. Finally, the majority’s interpretation of section 11.072’s language to restrict ha-beas relief in a case raising an issue of structural error violates article one section twelve of the Texas Constitution. I would hold that habeas corpus was available to Cherry under the circumstances of this case to remedy his choice-of-counsel complaint. See Gonzalez-Lopez, 548 U.S. at 148, 126 S.Ct. 2557 (“Deprivation of the right is ‘complete’ when the defendant is erroneously prevented from being represented by the lawyer he wants, regardless of the quality of the representation he received.”); and see Robinson, 16 S.W.3d at 813.
Because the majority concludes that appeal was available, when in my opinion it was not, and interprets the statute to suspend the writ of habeas corpus to prevent the review of structural error, I dissent.