Ibarra, Jamie Alberto, PD-0206-15

Appellant Jamie Alberto Ibarra was convicted of aggravated assault on a public servant in Harris County and sentenced to 50 years.
Eight months before trial, Ibarra moved to dismiss his retained counsel and to appoint a public defender; he subsequently filed additional motions challenging his representation.
The trial court did not grant relief and the defense sought counsel of choice; at pretrial hearings in 2014, Ibarra expressed dissatisfaction with counsel and claimed he could not afford private counsel.
The Fourteenth Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction in Ibarra v. State, No. 14-13-00337-CR (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2015).
Ibarra petitioned the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals for discretionary review, contending the trial court should have inquired into indigency and appointed counsel.
The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the conviction and addressed three grounds for review, with particular focus on indigency inquiry and the right to counsel of choice.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
When does the trial court have a duty to inquire into indigency?	Ibarra argues the trial court should have inquired into indigency due to requests to appoint counsel.	State contends no duty to inquire absent a showing of indigency.	No sua sponte indigency inquiry required.
Did denial of the request to fire retained counsel and appoint a public defender violate the right to counsel of choice?	Ibarra contends he was deprived of counsel of choice because his family hired counsel he could not afford.	State argues the right to counsel of choice is not absolute when indigency is not shown and counsel is not withdrawn.	Conviction affirmed; no constitutional violation shown under these facts.
Was the defendant prejudiced by ineffective assistance of counsel at punishment?	Ibarra asserts counsel’s failure to object and other conduct denied him effective representation.	State maintains no ineffective-assistance shown under Strickland standard.	Ineffective-assistance challenges rejected; record supports trial court's rulings.

Ex parte Briggs, 187 S.W.3d 458 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (indigency and appointment of counsel under Article 26.04 guidance)
Gonzalez–Lopez v. United States, 546 U.S. 140 (U.S. 2006) (preservation of counsel of choice; weighing rights against justice system interests)
Gonzalez v. State, 117 S.W.3d 831 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003) (right to counsel of choice; indigency considerations not explicit in all contexts)
Robinson v. State, 240 S.W.3d 919 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (trial court may disregard pro se motions when defendant is represented; indigency not shown)
Gray v. Robinson, 744 S.W.2d 604 (Tex. Crim. App. 1988) (duty to appoint counsel upon indigency; indigency showing required)
Easily v. State, 248 S.W.3d 272 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2007) (no duty to appoint counsel when defendant not indigent)
Wheat v. United States, 486 U.S. 153 (1988) (rights to counsel; balance against judicial efficiency)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (standard for ineffective assistance of counsel)