IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS
OF TEXAS
v.
THE STATE OF TEXAS
IN THE 226TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
BEXAR COUNTY
ORDER
The above-styled and numbered cause is pending before this Court as a result of appellant's capital murder conviction and resulting sentence of death in the 226th Judicial District Court of Bexar County, Cause No. 2006-CR-2079, styled The State of Texas v. Adrian Estrada. Three motions are currently pending before this Court: a motion from current counsel of record Suzanne Kramer to withdraw as appellant's direct appeal counsel, a motion from out-of-state counsel Brian Stull requesting admission as counsel pro hac vice for the direct appeal of this case, and a motion from Brian Stull requesting an extension of time for him to file a brief in this case.
Appellant was convicted of capital murder and sentenced to death on February 7, 2007. Days later, at the request of appellant and Kramer, and upon a finding of good cause, Kramer, who had been appellant's trial counsel, was appointed to continue as appellant's counsel on direct appeal. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Art. 26.052(k). On February 21 and 23, appellant wrote letters to the trial court in which he stated that he had changed his mind about continuing with Kramer and wanted new appellate counsel. During a hearing on the record, appellant explained that his confusion over certain aspects of his case led to him write those letters. However, after discussing the matter with Kramer, he was satisfied to allow her to continue representing him.
Notwithstanding the apparent resolution of this matter, appellant allegedly contacted the American Civil Liberties Union Capital Punishment Project on May 31, 2007, seeking representation on his direct appeal. (1) Because of this contact, Stull was prompted to seek admission to the courts of Texas as appellant's direct appeal counsel pro hac vice. But to make matters more confusing, counsel of record Kramer stated in a July hearing that, as of mid-June, appellant continued to express his desire that she continue to represent him on direct appeal.
Because the record gives conflicting information regarding who appellant wants to represent him on the direct appeal of this case, the trial court is ordered to resolve the issue on the record. The court is specifically ordered to determine whether appellant contacted other counsel after the February hearing in which he agreed to continue with Kramer and, if so, which counsel he wants to represent him in the direct appeal of this case. This matter shall be resolved and the record of any hearing conducted and any documentary evidence received in an effort to resolve the matter shall be submitted to this Court within 30 days of the date of this order.
IT IS SO ORDERED THIS THE 11th DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2007.
Do not publish
1.