Andrew Perez v. State, 07-14-00383-CR

Andrew Perez was arrested Oct. 2013 on manufacture/delivery of a controlled substance, posted bond, and retained counsel about a week later.
Counsel represented Perez for ~11 months, spent ~15–20 hours preparing, provided discovery (patrol car video), and attempted plea negotiations.
Trial was set for late Sept. 2014. On the morning of trial Perez said he was dissatisfied and sought to fire counsel; he did not have substitute counsel ready.
The trial court inquired, denied any continuance, and proceeded with counsel representing Perez; a jury convicted Perez and assessed 14 years’ imprisonment.
The judgment credited Perez with one day in jail; Perez claimed on appeal he was entitled to 120 days’ credit.

Issue	Perez’s Argument	State’s Argument	Held
Whether Perez was denied his Sixth Amendment right to counsel of choice when the court refused his last‑minute request to discharge retained counsel and continue trial	Perez argued the court should have allowed him his choice of counsel and continued trial	The State argued (implicitly) that counsel was competent and prepared and the request was untimely and would disrupt court and juror schedules	Court held no Sixth Amendment violation; trial court did not abuse discretion denying the last‑minute change because counsel was competent, prepared, no substitute was ready, and the request appeared to be delay tactic
Whether the judgment should be reformed to reflect 120 days’ jail‑time credit	Perez asserted the record establishes 120 days in custody and asked the court to reform the judgment	The State did not substantively contest entitlement but asked to dismiss the contention	Court declined to modify the judgment because the record did not reliably show 120 days; noted any omission is clerical and correctable by nunc pro tunc order

United States v. Gonzalez-Lopez, 548 U.S. 140 (Sixth Amendment violation for wrongful denial of counsel of choice)
Wheat v. United States, 486 U.S. 153 (trial court may balance right to chosen counsel against court integrity and schedule)
Morris v. Slappy, 461 U.S. 1 (trial judges have broad discretion on trial management and continuances)
Gonzales v. State, 117 S.W.3d 831 (Texas recognition of right to counsel and counsel‑of‑choice doctrine)
Ex parte Windham, 634 S.W.2d 718 (factors to weigh when considering continuances and delays)
Ex parte Ybarra, 149 S.W.3d 147 (trial court must grant pre‑sentence jail credit when pronouncing sentence)
Collins v. State, 240 S.W.3d 925 (clerical errors in back‑time credit may be corrected by nunc pro tunc)