In The
Court of Appeals
Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo
No. 07-18-00357-CR
SHERMAN LAMONT DANIELS, APPELLANT
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE
On Appeal from the 30th District Court
Wichita County, Texas1
Trial Court No. 45,165-A, Honorable Robert P. Brotherton, Presiding
November 1, 2018
ORDER OF ABATEMENT AND REMAND
Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and PARKER, JJ.
Appellant, Sherman Lamont Daniels, appeals the trial court’s judgment
adjudicating him guilty of the offense of aggravated kidnapping,2 revoking his deferred
adjudication community supervision, and sentencing him to five years’ confinement. The
appellate record is due December 10, 2018, and the reporter’s record has been filed.
1 By order of the Texas Supreme Court, this appeal was transferred to this Court from the Second
Court of Appeals. See TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 73.001 (West 2013).
2 TEX. PENAL CODE. ANN. § 20.04 (West 2011).
Now pending before this Court is the motion to withdraw of appellant’s counsel stating
that appellant wishes to represent himself on appeal. We abate and remand for further
proceedings.
The trial court has the responsibility for appointing counsel to represent 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.
2018); see also Enriquez v. State, 999 S.W.2d 906, 907 (Tex. App.—Waco 1999, no pet.).
An appellate court has discretion to permit an appellant to represent himself on appeal if
he can do so without interfering with the administration of the appellate process. See
Bibbs v. State, No. 07-10-00300-CR, 2011 Tex. App. LEXIS 9490, at *4 (Tex. App.—
Amarillo Dec. 2, 2011, order) (per curiam). Our exercise of that discretion depends on a
case-by-case analysis of the best interest of the appellant, the State, and the proper
administration of justice. Id.
We, therefore, abate this appeal and remand the cause to the trial court for further
proceedings. Upon remand, the trial court shall conduct a hearing to determine the
following:
1. whether appellant still desires to prosecute the appeal;
2. whether appellant desires to represent himself on appeal;
3. if appellant desires to represent himself, whether his decision to do so is
competently and intelligently made, including whether he is aware of the
dangers and disadvantages of self-representation on appeal, see Hubbard
v. State, 739 S.W.2d 341, 345 (Tex. Crim. App. 1987); and
4. if appellant desires to represent himself, whether allowing him to do so is in
his best interest, in the best interest of the State, and in furtherance of the
proper administration of justice.
2
Should the trial court determine that appellant desires to represent himself on
appeal, that appellant has made a competent and intelligent decision to represent himself,
and that allowing appellant to represent himself is in the best interest of appellant, the
State, and the proper administration of justice, the trial court may grant counsel’s motion
to withdraw. The trial court shall issue findings of fact and conclusions of law and any
necessary orders addressing the foregoing subjects. Additionally, the trial court shall
cause to be developed (1) a clerk’s record containing the findings, conclusions, and any
necessary orders; and (2) a supplemental reporter’s record transcribing any evidence and
argument presented at the hearing. The record shall be filed with the Clerk of this Court
on or before December 17, 2018. Should further time be needed to perform these tasks,
then same must be requested before December 17, 2018.
It is so ordered.
Per Curiam
Do not publish.
3