IN THE
TENTH COURT OF APPEALS
No. 10-06-00133-CR
Kesha Latrice Jenkins,
Appellant
v.
The State of Texas,
Appellee
From the 361st District Court
Brazos County, Texas
Trial Court No. 05-01970-CRF-361
ABATEMENT ORDER
Kesha Latrice Jenkins was convicted of robbery and theft in June of 2005. The Court of Criminal Appeals granted Jenkins an out-of-time appeal pursuant to her application for writ of habeas corpus. Counsel for Jenkins then timely filed a notice of appeal for Jenkins.
Counsel now files a motion to withdraw and for substitution of counsel for Jenkins and attaches as an exhibit a copy of a grievance filed by Jenkins against her counsel.
Because counsel is appointed, the trial court must decide whether to allow counsel to withdraw and whether to allow the substitution of counsel. See Enriquez v. State, 999 S.W.2d 906, 907-908 (Tex. App.—Waco 1999, order). This case is abated to the trial court to hold a hearing within 30 days from the date of this order to consider counsel’s motion to withdraw and for substitution and the appointment of new counsel for Jenkins. If Jenkins desires to waive her right to counsel and represent herself on appeal, the waiver should be made knowingly and intelligently and she should be warned of the dangers and disadvantages accompanying such waiver. Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806, 835, 95 S. Ct. 2525, 2541, 45 L. Ed. 2d 562 (1975); Hatten v. State, 71 S.W.3d 332, 333 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002). A waiver of the right to counsel must be in writing and must substantially comply with article 1.051(g) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 1.051(g) (Vernon 2005).
Supplemental Clerk’s and Reporter’s Records are ordered to be filed within 45 days from the date of this order.
PER CURIAM
Before Chief Justice Gray,
Justice Vance, and
Justice Reyna
Appeal abated
Order issued and filed November 7, 2007
Do not publish
uld not have been harmed by the trial court’s denial of his challenges for cause.
Absent a record revealing trial counsel’s strategy or motivation, Saiza has not defeated the strong presumption that trial counsel’s actions fell within the wide range of reasonable professional assistance. See Thompson v. State, 9 S.W.3d 808, 814 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999). Accordingly, we overrule both of Saiza’s points and affirm the trial court’s judgment.
REX D. DAVIS
Justice
Before Chief Justice Gray,
Justice Reyna, and
Justice Davis
Affirmed
Opinion delivered and filed November 4, 2009
Do not publish
[CRPM]