IN THE
TENTH COURT OF APPEALS
No. 10-06-00329-CR
Robert L. Chavez,
Appellant
v.
The State of Texas,
Appellee
From the 54th District Court
McLennan County, Texas
Trial Court No. 2005-1153-C
MEMORANDUM Opinion
Appellant has filed a motion to dismiss this appeal under Rule of Appellate Procedure 42.2(a). See Tex. R. App. P. 42.2(a); Crawford v. State, 226 S.W.3d 688, 688 (Tex. App.CWaco 2007, no pet.) (per curiam). We have not issued a decision in this appeal. Appellant personally signed the motion. The Clerk of this Court has sent a duplicate copy to the trial court clerk. Id. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
PER CURIAM
Before Chief Justice Gray,
Justice Vance, and
Justice Reyna
Appeal dismissed
Opinion delivered and filed October 17, 2007
Do not publish
[CR25]
'>Tex. R. App. P. 42.2; McClain v. State, 17 S.W.3d 310, 311 (Tex. App.CWaco 2000, no pet.).
If Goddard expresses a desire to proceed pro se, the trial court shall admonish him on the record “of the dangers and disadvantages of self-representation.” Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 1.051(g) (Vernon 2005); see also Fewins v. State, No. 10-04-00189-CR (Tex. App.—Waco September 7, 2005, order). If the court determines that he has voluntarily and intelligently waived his right to counsel, the court shall require him to execute a written waiver of counsel which substantially complies with article 1.051(g). Id.
Because the trial court must admonish Goddard on the record regarding his right to self-representation and because the court must ascertain whether Goddard still desires to prosecute his appeal and determine whether any waiver of counsel is voluntarily and intelligently made, Goddard must be afforded an opportunity to personally participate in the abatement hearing. This does not necessarily mean, however, that he must personally appear at the hearing.
Frequently in civil litigation involving prison inmates, trial courts permit the inmates to participate in hearings via teleconference. See In re Z.L.T., 124 S.W.3d 163, 165-66 (Tex. 2003). We are aware of no reason why a similar procedure could not be employed here. Cf. Webb v. State, 533 S.W.2d 780, 784 (Tex. Crim. App. 1976) (pro se criminal appellant has no right to appear before appellate court and present argument). Any paperwork (e.g., waiver of appeal or waiver of counsel) could be completed through the mail. These of course are matters we leave to the discretion of the trial court.
The trial court shall, within thirty days after the date of this Order: (1) conduct the hearing; (2) cause a court reporter to make a record of the hearing; (3) make appropriate orders and findings of fact and conclusions of law; and (4) deliver any orders and findings of fact and conclusions of law to the trial court clerk. The trial court shall inform Goddard’s counsel, or Goddard himself if pro se, that his brief is due within thirty days after the date of the hearing.
The trial court clerk shall: (1) prepare a supplemental clerk=s record containing all orders and findings of fact and conclusions of law which the trial court renders or makes; and (2) file the supplemental clerk=s record with the Clerk of this Court within forty-five days after the date of this Order.
The court reporter shall prepare and file a supplemental reporter’s record containing a transcription of the hearing within forty-five days after the date of this Order.
PER CURIAM
Before Chief Justice Gray,
Justice Vance, and
Justice Reyna
(Chief Justice Gray concurs with a note: Chief Justice Gray agrees to abate the case pursuant to Rule 38.8(b). Any elaboration beyond that is advisory only and is not joined in by Chief Justice Gray.)
Appeal abated
Order issued and filed September 14, 2005
Do not publish