Court Opinion

ID: 9370606
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-14 12:09:20.700991+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:22.607939
License: Public Domain

FILE COPY

                           Fourth Court of Appeals
                                  San Antonio, Texas
                                        February 8, 2023

                                      No. 04-22-00682-CR

                                 Michael David KNOVICKA,
                                          Appellant

                                                v.

                                     The STATE of Texas,
                                           Appellee

                 From the 198th Judicial District Court, Bandera County, Texas
                               Trial Court No. CR-XX-XXXXXXX
                         Honorable M. Rex Emerson, Judge Presiding

                                         ORDER
       On January 24, 2023, appellant’s appointed attorney, Amanda Roming, filed a motion to
withdraw as appellate counsel. She states she can no longer represent appellant because there
has been an irreparable breakdown in communication as evidenced by letters sent to the court.
We grant Ms. Roming’s motion to withdraw.
        Appellant, whose brief is currently due on March 20, 2023, is now without
representation. We therefore order this appeal abated to the trial court. See Duncan v. State,
653 S.W.2d 38, 40 (Tex. Crim. App. 1983) (holding appellate courts may abate appeals so trial
court can assure appellant has effective assistance of counsel). We remand the cause to the trial
court for it to make appropriate findings and rule on these issues:

       1. Does appellant desire to prosecute his appeal?

       2. Is appellant indigent? If appellant is indigent and desires to prosecute his appeal, the
          trial court should take steps necessary to ensure effective assistance of counsel,
          including the appointment of new counsel, if necessary. If appellant desires to
          proceed pro se, the trial court is directed to determine appellant’s ability and capacity
          to knowingly and intelligently waive his right to counsel. See Ex parte Davis, 818
          S.W.2d 64, 66-68 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991); Hubbard v. State, 739 S.W.2d 341, 345
          (Tex. Crim. App. 1987). The trial should consider whether allowing appellant to
          proceed pro se on appeal is in the best interests of the appellant and the government.
                                                                                           FILE COPY

           Martinez v. California, 528 U.S. 152, 120 S. Ct. 684, 691-92 145 L. Ed.2d 597
           (2000).

       We further order the trial court to file in this court by March 10, 2023: (1) a reporter’s
record of the hearing, and (2) a supplemental clerk’s record containing the trial court’s written
findings of fact and conclusions of law on the above issues.

       We further order appellant’s pro se motions filed on January 27, 2023 and titled “Motion
for Appeal Bond” and “Motion for Appeal Speedy Trial” denied.

       All other appellate deadlines are suspended until further notice from this court.

                                                     _________________________________
                                                     Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

       IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said
court on this 8th day of February, 2023.

                                                     ___________________________________
                                                     MICHAEL A. CRUZ, Clerk of Court