Watkins v. State, 333 S.W.3d 771

Watkins was convicted of murder by a jury and sentenced to life imprisonment after pled true to two enhancement allegations.
Watkins challenged numerous trial issues, including removal of court-appointed counsel, jury instructions, accomplice testimony, and evidentiary rulings.
The State’s case included Watkins’ involvement in a drug/money theft scheme at Charles White’s residence, a struggle, gunfire, and Watkins’ DNA at the scene.
An accomplice, Hamilton, dated Robinson and was involved peripherally; her credibility and status as an accomplice witness were contested.
The court ultimately modified the judgment to delete attorney’s and investigator’s fees, affirming the conviction as modified.
The trial court’s handling of Watkins’s motion to dismiss counsel and related Article 28.01 proceedings were reviewed for abuse of discretion.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was there an abuse of discretion in removal of counsel hearing?	Watkins contends right to hearing and presence at denial.	Watkins had no right to chosen counsel; denial did not require a hearing.	No abuse; no proceeding under article 28.01.
Was there legal/factual sufficiency of specific intent to kill by Watkins or accomplice?	Watkins asserts proof of specific intent to kill failed.	Evidence, including use of deadly weapons, supports implied intent to kill.	Evidence sufficient under Jackson v. Virginia standard.
Was error in omitting an accomplice as matter of law instruction?	Hamilton could be an accomplice as matter of law; jury should be instructed.	Evidence did not compel accomplice-as-a-matter-of-law instruction; status was not clear.	No error; Hamilton not an accomplice as matter of law.
Did the omission of article 38.075 corroboration instruction egregiously harm Watkins?	Instruction required corroboration of statements made while incarcerated.	Omission was harmless given other sufficient evidence linking Watkins to the offense.	Omission was not egregiously harmful; overall evidence supported conviction.
Was admitting attorney's and investigator's fees erroneous?	Fees were improper absent evidence of a change in indigence.	Fees were improperly assessed.	Yes; modify judgment to delete attorney's and investigator's fees.

Malcom v. State, 628 S.W.2d 790 (Tex. Crim. App. 1982) (overruled proceeding where not a formal 28.01 hearing)
Riggall v. State, 590 S.W.2d 460 (Tex. Crim. App. 1979) (proceeding under article 28.01 required presence if proceedings held)
Thomas v. State, 550 S.W.2d 64 (Tex. Crim. App. 1977) (right to appointed counsel limited; no right to chosen counsel)
Cocke v. State, 201 S.W.3d 744 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (accomplice witness status depends on evidence and legal status)
Druery v. State, 225 S.W.3d 491 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (accomplice-witness status and corroboration principles)
Almanza v. State, 686 S.W.2d 157 (Tex. Crim. App. 1985) (standard for egregious harm in Almanza-aided review)
Herron v. State, 86 S.W.3d 621 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002) (corroboration sufficiency standard on 38.075 context)
Mayer v. State, 309 S.W.3d 552 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (fees assessment error in indigent defendants)