M ORE L AW
LEXAPEDIA
Salus Populi Suprema Lex Esto

Information
About MoreLaw
Contact MoreLaw

Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.

Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw

Date: 05-16-2018

Case Style:

Orlando Bell v. The State of Texas

Texas Court of Appeals, Seventh District

Case Number: 07-18-00173-CR

Judge: Per Curiam

Court: Texas Court of Appeals, Seventh District

Plaintiff's Attorney: Julie L. Renken

Defendant's Attorney: Christopher Matthew Dillon

Description: Appellant, Orlando Bell, was convicted by a jury of failure to comply with sex
offender registration requirements, enhanced by two prior felonies,1 and sentenced to fifty
years confinement. The appellate record has been filed and Appellant’s brief is due to be
filed on or before June 1, 2018. Appellant is represented by court-appointed counsel.
Pending before this court is Appellant’s pro se Motion [to] Remove Counsel in
which he complains of ineffective assistance of counsel and various alleged failures or
omissions by counsel in representing him. Appellant’s complaints require fact findings
that this court is not in a position to render.
Furthermore, the trial court has the responsibility for appointing counsel for indigent
defendants as well as the authority to relieve or replace appointed counsel upon a finding
of good cause. See TEX. CODE. CRIM. PROC. ANN. arts. 1.051(d), 26.04(j)(2) (West Supp.
2017). See also Enriquez v. State, 999 S.W.2d 906, 907 (Tex. App.—Waco 1999, no
pet.). Consequently, we now abate this appeal and remand the cause to the trial court
for further proceedings.
Upon remand, the trial court shall, by whatever means necessary, determine the
following:
1. whether Appellant still desires to prosecute his appeal;
2. whether good cause exists for removal of his court-appointed counsel; and
3. whether Appellant remains indigent and is entitled to appointment of new counsel.
Should the trial court determine that Appellant does want to continue this appeal, but he
is not entitled to new appointed counsel, it should enter an order denying his pro se motion
and cause that order to be filed with the District Clerk. Should the trial court determine
that Appellant does want to continue this appeal and that he is entitled to new court
3

appointed counsel, it should enter an order granting his pro se motion and cause that
order to be filed with the District Clerk along with a new order appointing counsel, stating
the name, address, phone number, email address, and state bar number of newly
appointed counsel. The trial court shall cause that order, and any other necessary orders,
to be included in a supplemental clerk’s record to be filed with the clerk of this court by
June 8, 2018.

Outcome: The current appellate deadline of June 1, 2018, for the filing of Appellant’s brief is suspended. If new counsel is not appointed, Appellant’s brief shall be due thirty days from the date of the order denying Appellant’s pro se motion. If new counsel is appointed, Appellant’s brief shall be due thirty days from the date of the order of appointment.

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments:



 
 
Home | Add Attorney | Add Expert | Add Court Reporter | Sign In
Find-A-Lawyer By City | Find-A-Lawyer By State and City | Articles | Recent Lawyer Listings
Verdict Corrections | Link Errors | Advertising | Editor | Privacy Statement
© 1996-2018 MoreLaw, Inc. - All rights reserved.