Ex Parte Gonzales

(Tex.Cr. Houston v. 846 S.W.2d 848

App.1993). J.,

WOMACK, dissents. GONZALES, Ex Parte Mirlo Luana Applicant. 72,606. No. Texas, Appeals Court of Criminal En Banc. May 12, 1997.

OPINION

HOLLAND, Judge. of ha- original application for writ

In this illegal- corpus, applicant contends she beas by an order of ly restrained County. Bosque Ap- 220th District Court (1) restraint violates plicant her asserts Const, other and various statutes, being for imprisoned she is because (2) debt; and she was de- a hearing in which the prived of judge her in of court trial ninety days in her to and sentenced County Bosque Jail. burglary of a

Applicant was convicted years and sentenced five habitation $3,000 finement, probated, fine. After and a sentence, ap- her judge trial announced appeal her desire plicant indicated attorney. The requested court-appointed hearing on judge conducted digency. she did have Applicant testified living dependents and with any two or three her flaneé. She worked installing and rode to work week sheet rock neighbor. Applicant that look- stated job steady income ing for different difficult she did not have ade- Applicant quate transportation. money

process repaying her father for he retaining trial her posted on her bond Additionally, still attorney. $1,400. attorney Applicant owed pay for a could not afford to maintained she attorney for facts or hire statement of appeal. purposes of an judge applicant how much The trial asked monthly money up with on a she could “come responded, “[prob- to which basis” fifty a The trial court ably about week.” finding indigency re- a “limited made regard and in of facts gard statement Clifton, Robertson, appellant. Phil for on to counsel regard appointed —or applicant ap- peal.” Hamilton, Peterson, Martin L. Matthew report- the court counsel and ordered pellate Austin, Paul, Atty., the state. State’s Applicant prepare of facts. a statement er per to the week ordered to $50.00 perfect [applicant] contrary must act to time within which judgment conclusion 1. The reflects attorney [applicant] appeal, appointed” an the Court stating that the “Court found appeal. limitations of on to the district clerk for the statement facts and The record demonstrates that appeal on until farther did proceeding not understand the repeatedly court.2 explana- asked Applicant put tions. evidence later, A few months the State filed a Mo- nor she argue did in her own behalf. The tion Show alleging applicant Cause judge applicant in contempt held and sen- any to make weekly payments of the $50.00 ninety days jail. judge tenced her to in The ordered Appearing pro the trial court. se provided applicant’s sentence would be motion, at the hearing applicant on the suspended thirty days after if applicant paid formed judge the employed was at Taco $750.00, Bosque County past the amount due working eight day, Bell hours a six on payments. her court ordered living by week. She paying herself on rent house father vacated. Appli- I. cant was still transportation without and rode review, In ground her first for day neighbor. to work each with a The resulting claims that her confinement from judge told her failure to weekly make the court ordered [y]ou making payments, better be these being imprisoned amounts to her Gonzales, you Ms. going or are not to like pay for in a debt violation of happens. going what And I you, am to tell I, § Const. art. 18.4 She notes this Court’s you going to need to have an Wilson, opinion Curry in 858 S.W.2d 40 representing you you don’t tend to busi- (Tex.Crim.App.1993) provides some back .... you may ness going Otherwise ground on the issue. jail. A. The trial hearing continued the for three weeks to see what of progress kind Curry The defendant in payments. made the counsel for his criminal trial. After the de- acquitted, fendant was the trial court notified resumed, When the applicant, the defendant that it was he aware had the se, again appearing pro still had not amade representation, resources to for his payment. The trial stated pursuant to Tex.Code Crim.Proe.Ann. I I previously you believe had admonished 26.05(e), Art. repay he would be retaining about an attorney you and told provided by services I you did indigent not find that were county. prohibition In a writ to this I appoint you so would an attorney. [sic] 26.05(e), Court the defendant claimed art. statute, Texas violated the Due Equal provisions Process and Protection you don’t find are in a situation where the Texas and Federal Constitutions. We 26.05(e) you’re be, indigent as I determine that to held not art. did violate Due Process I’m going you so not to appoint Equal argued by attor- Protection in the manner ney. the defendant. produced

The case, State evidence The issue the instant which was in Curry, payments.3 open failure make of the left whether $50.00 a defendant payment appli- cepts 2. This a condition of are interrelated. have said probation. cant’s inapplicable proceedings: § 18 is liability general, pay money growing In 3. There was evidence that made one out of contract constitutes a debt within the however, payment, $50.00 it was made outside meaning guaranty.... of the constitutional alleged hearing. the dates imprisonment phrase Hence for debt has proceedings, application no to criminal nor to I, § 4. TexConst. art. 18 provides imprisonment punishment meted out as a person violation the laws and for a imprisoned No shall ever be refusal submit for debt. applicant phrases penalty imposed. argument to the While his in an context, Robertson, “imprisonment really Ex-parte Tex.App. for debt” he is 11 S.W. 669 making (1889); Equal Protection claim. These con- Dixon v. 2 Tex. 481 Williams, held that a State Court held in and confined can be incarcerated be- keep a defendant violating made to art. an order of confinement 26.05(e). yond period maximum Tex.Code Crim.Proc.Ann. the basis that statute on authorized states imposed is unable to fine that a defendant the court determines [i]f Tate, the Su- his part sentence. him to has financial resources that enable the defendant could preme held that Court or whole the costs offset fine failure to imprisoned not be including any provided, ex- services only” violating a “fine statute imposed for costs, order the penses and the court shall Tate, status. it pay the amount that finds defendant to 397-98, at 670-71. 91 S.Ct. pay. defendant is able to violations Williams equal protection provides for art. 26.05 the While Tate the suffered defendants fees, proce- it does not set forth the inability solely finement due to their financial so, consequences nor dure which to do the pay whereas those defendants to a fine resulting pay- to such from a failure make imprisonment. access to funds could avoid ments. equal Applicant explain how does not the contempt proceedings, appli than Rather in protection violations the Court argues cant that the trial should have court Tate Williams and to this or how case procedures the for collection fees utilized procedures in arts. following the outlined expenses in set forth Tex.Code Crim. prevent would such violations 42.12 and 43.03 Proc.Ann. arts. 42.12 and 43.03. Article occurring here. note that neither from requires prior making payment to 42.12 directly applies to art. 42.12 nor 43.03 fines, costs, restitution, or reimbursement judgment court’s applicant because the trial for court condition of counsel a such, the court was being appealed. is As probation, proba the trial court “consider” according payments to order to obligated not ability payments tioner’s to make or such guidelines As the of arts. 42.12 43.03. dered the court. Crim.Proc. Tex.Code ascertain, applicant’s argument best can 11(b); Pennington 42.12, § Ann. art. following in 42.12 procedures is that the arts. (Tex.App 902 Worth 754 . —Fort court and 43.03 cited above before ref'd). 1995, pet. provides Article 43.03 in and orders finds defendant pay fine a defendant sentenced to or payments him to make confined payment, costs defaults in not the safeguard would to the order the defendant confined unless arising against Equal violation Protection (1) that the determines defendant solely from a confinement based defendant’s indigent or determines that the defendant extent, indigent on his status. To wilfully pay to make refused or failed agree. legally fide sufficient bona efforts ac- illogical a trial court to It would be ....; quire pay the resources appoint counsel and then find a defendant (2) determines that no method alternative in him and sentence defendant discharging appropri- fines and ... county prison for failure to reimburse the for the ate defendant. first expense for the of his defense without 43.03(d). considering ability payments. make Ap- Tex.Code Crim.Proc.Ann. art. appoints This is even if a trial court plicant claims the trial court’s action in at- true due to payments non-indigent outside counsel for a defendant tempting collect constraints, as in instant time occurred guidelines of arts. 42.12 and 43.03 resulted much, prov- 26.05 type Equal violation the case. Article mandates Protection ing “the court shall order defendant Supreme Court discussed United States Illinois, amount that it 90 Williams S.Ct. U.S. defendant finds (1970) pay.” and Tate v. is able to ignores If the court 26 L.Ed.2d Short, ability payments, wheth- make 28 L.Ed.2d defendant’s S.Ct. probation are er the a condition defense, repay

or for the costs of put one’s it is under even conditional possible that a imprisoned obligation so, defendant to do and those whom a solely indigent Language due to his status. obligation imposed conditional are not sub- suggests both Williams and Tate there is jected procedures to collection until their a distinction between defendant who fails to digency hardship’ has ended and no ‘manifest payments solely make due to his result”). will status and a who has the funds to We find instructive the fact that the Fuller payments, make but refuses to do so. See upheld validity of a Williams, 399 U.S. at n. 90 S.Ct. at specifically statute allowing for enforcement (stating “nothing 2023 n. 19 in our deci- through contempt. Although noting the de- today precludes imprisonment sion for will- fendant did not raise an “imprisonment for costs”); a fine or court ful refusal issue, debt” the Court nonetheless stated Tate, U.S. at (empha- 91 S.Ct. at 672 Oregon recoupment statute was “not sizing holding “suggest any its consti- a collection used device the State to en- infirmity imprisonment tutional of a defen- it, force debts but imposed [ ] a sanction dant means to who fine obey ‘an intentional refusal to the order ”) neglects (emphasis to do so add- refuses ed). of the court.’” Id. at 48 n. 94 S.Ct. at case, likely first a court is not n. 2122 9. equal protection find an violation. The re- quirement 26.05(e), of article as well as that We that finding 43.03, of and 42.12 the that trial court take contempt ordering pur and him confined ability into consideration a defendant’s to suant to a statute should not make recognizes importance the of debt, operate as a to means collect but this distinction. rather as a to method which enforce court order. Our should statute B. operate Accordingly, in the same manner. case look guidance Another we can to for that, minimum, hold at a a trial court 40, Oregon, is Fuller 417 U.S. 94 S.Ct. not order a for defendant confined failure to (1974). Fuller, 40 L.Ed.2d 642 the repay the costs of defense Supreme upheld validity the of an to art. unless the court considers the Oregon recoupment required statute ability payment. defendant’s to make the that several conditions be satisfied before a power The trial court’s to order reimburse defendant could repay be to the ment should limited to be the extent defen defense, including provi- costs of his the reasonably is dant able to do so. See art. sion shall “[t]he not sentence a 26.05(e) (stating “the court order shall the pay defendant to unless the defendant pay defendant to the amount that it finds the is or will be to at able them.” Id. 43 n. pay”). require defendant is to If that able at Oregon 2120 n. The S.Ct. 5. statute followed, ment there is no reason a defen provided also that an individual could be held dant could not held in and con repay for failure to unless he satisfy to fined failure a court’s order showed that “his default was not attributable step logical under art. 26.05. The next in our obey to an to intentional the refusal of analysis of this case would be the court to a on his to make rule the facts here and decide the trial good payment to make the faith effort applicant’s ability court considered to reim _” (emphasis Id. 94 S.Ct. at 2121 county. burse the due our dis added). type The statute contained of position ground of second for re safeguard suggested constitutional view, need not make determination. Tate, is, imprisonment Williams obligation satisfy monetary failure to II. should based a defendant’s refusal ground than a financial In his rather defendant’s mere second review pay. inability (noting id. claims the trial court’s failure to advise her of See “defen- right having dants no of means likelihood counsel support child and sentenced process of U.S. ure to deprived her under validity XIV, challenged jail.6 of Relator amend. VI and due course Const. contempt hearing he was and the of Const. art. law under Tex. of counsel the record effective assistance counsel assistance of right afforded Tex. guaranteed by right. both constitutions and Good show he waived such agree, 1.051. man, ap The of Code Crim.Proc.Ann. at 539. 742 S.W.2d

peals stated A. in this that when is settled law State [i]t contempt, is not right charged counsel fundamental fair intelli- to a trial. See Gideon v. Wain counsel and has not represented essential 792, 795, 335, 342, wright, 83 S.Ct. gently assistance waived (1963). counsel, not, violating L.Ed.2d 799 The Sixth Amendment a court without provides to the United States Constitution assistance the constitutional ac prosecutions, all criminal “[i]n impose punish- imprisonment as a enjoy ... shall to have cused support aof child ment for disobedience for his defense.” U.S. assistance order. Const, amend. VI. It is well settled omitted). (citations Quoting Texas Id. Sixth Amendment counsel is Court, appeals noted Supreme the court forfeitable, may only by the but be waived proceedings generally crimi- “[cjontempt intelligent per conscious and decision of the they grow out nal in their nature whether Zerbst, right. son holds Johnson who or civil Id. at 540. actions.” U.S. 58 S.Ct. stated, this, find it the court “we view The Texas L.Ed. constitution inescapable that the to counsel afford- guarantees specifically the assistance also provi- those accused of crime ed to I, § The Tex counsel. Const. Proce- of the Texas Code of Criminal sions Legislature steps to this as has taken ensure equally alleged constructive dure by enacting constitutional mandate a statuto contemnors.” The criminal code ry representation right proc in criminal cited, which included provisions the court eedings.5 1.051, right to all address a defendant’s art. any this have found from We case right appointment of counsel counsel and right addressing an individual’s See Tex.Code Crim.Proc.Ann. contempt hearing. counsel at (“A in a criminal matter art. 1.051 defendant have this in the other courts considered issue by in an represented to be counsel is entitled contempt hearing resulting from context of judicial proceeding”); 15.17 adversarial support. Although failure to child (“The magistrate inform clear lan- shall in Court, authority binding are not cases right ... guage person arrested of his helpful find the decisions resolution we ..., right to attorney present, of his have an of the instant case. appointment of counsel if he request ...”); Goodman, indigent and cannot afford counsel parte 742 536 In Ex S.W.2d (‘Whenever 1987, the court determines (Tex.App orig. proceed art. 26.04 Worth . —Ft. felony or charged fail an with a ing), contempt relator was found in ... that accused days jail, suspended after provides in to 144 in to be tenced Tex.Code Crim.Proc.Ann. 1.051 pertinent serving days, during period of 24 a 48 month (a) defendant a criminal matter is entitled probation. Subsequently, A in filed relator’s ex-wife represented by counsel in an adversarial to be alleging Probation relator a Motion to Revoke judicial proceeding.... support payments due. failed to make the child motion, found on the the court At the (c) indigent is entitled to have An defendant suspend- comply with the relator attorney appointed represent him in failing pay- ing make his commitment may adversary judicial proceeding result that custody to committed to ments due and was punishment by in confinement.... payment of he 120 unless tendered serve history fol- procedural is as $6,643.80, 6. The Goodman past support the child due. contempt hearing, was sen- lows: At relator 836 punishable by imprisonment ney indigent”).

a misdemeanor if he is We note several poor counsel, employ too the court shall circuits addressing federal this issue have appoint one held proceed ..The “the a defendant in held that pearance alleged imprisonment without counsel of an con- ing who faces result of as a contempt hearing proceeding structive contemnor at a representation. is entitled to See, Anderson, requires alleged the court to e.g., advise United States v. 553 F.2d (8th Cir.1977) right represented by 1154, 1155 of his temnor to be (stating process and his request appoint counsel requires to counsel be to con extended ment counsel if he is tempt proceeding cannot where defendant 955, Bella, afford counsel.” imprisoned); In re F.2d Di 518 (2nd Cir.1975) (holding 959 enti defendant appeals’ the court proceeding counsel in tled to civil reasoning in Goodman. Like our sister where faced of im prospect court, recognize contempt proceed prisonment); see v. Bo also United States ings quasi-criminal in nature. See Ex Inc., 618, Agency, bart Travel 620 699 F.2d Cardwell, (Tex. parte 416 384 S.W.2d (2nd Cir.1983) (recognizing “contempt is an 1967). Accordingly, proceedings in area of law which advice is counsel’s practicable should nearly cases conform as indispensable”); often v. United Brooks parte to those in criminal cases. See Ex States, 686 (D.C.App.1996) A.2d 233 Sanchez, (Tex.1986); 703 S.W.2d J., (due (Ruiz, concurring) requires process Thornton, Deramus v. proceed- assistance of counsel in contempt 824, 829 S.W.2d The Code Crimi ings incarceration); that result Wisconsin emphasizes nal Procedure to coun Pultz, Wis.2d 556 N.W.2d cases, in criminal sel and as the Goodman (1996) (trial se pro court must advise defen- asserted, to counsel should contempt proceeding might dant similarly extend to criminal contemnors. result in incarceration entitled to that he is “[t]he We also note that represented attorney, deprivation turns on whether of lib counsel). indigent, appointment entitled to erty proceeding, result from a reasons, foregoing For the hold its characterization as ‘criminal’ ‘civil.’” Strickland, representa a contemnor is entitled to parte Ex tion, either retained or (Tex.App orig. proceeding) . —Eastland Baker, (quoting Ridgway v. 720 F.2d 1409 (5th Cir.1983)). person be de “[N]o case, Turning to we the instant note liberty of prived his who has been denied the applicant contempt was held sen counsel_” Argersinger v. assistance ninety days jail. clear that tenced to It is Hamlin, 25, 37-38, 407 U.S. S.Ct. 92 contempt of this for failure the result action 2013, 32 L.Ed.2d 530 Contemnors to make the court ordered is a procedural process pro to are entitled deprivation applicant’s liberty. Based they may before held in con tections fact, coupled this with our view tempt; especially this is when the true re Criminal provisions Code of Procedure enti contempt proceeding sults of lead to tling representation to should Keene, parte incarceration. Ex 909 Cf. contemnors, appli find to (Tex.1995) (holding con- S.W.2d 507-08 right represented by to cant had counsel unlawfully temnor confined because at the right him his advise to right or of his to counsel in counsel B. 14.32(f) Family violation of Code Having provides possible applicant that if re found that was enti incarceration is contempt proceedings, representation, court shall now deter sult of “the tled to we must respondent represented of this inform who is not mine whether was informed attorney right represented right. had the an of his to be find that the trial court right appointment duty of an attor- assure that aware of and his to the to

837 subjected to formal adversarial attorney to be defendant be right an to retain her lawyer unless judicial without proceedings if court determined appointed counsel concluding he know- right is a basis for indigent. “The constitutional there intelligently relin- voluntarily, ingly, represented an accused to be right to the assis- his invokes, itself, quished or abandoned protection (citing North Id. at court, life or tance of counsel.” in which the accused—whose Butler, 99 S.Ct. v. U.S. without counsel.” Carolina liberty is at stake—is (1979)). appli- Zerbst, Because at 1023. 60 L.Ed.2d 58 S.Ct. right to counsel of her of a was not notified appearance held “the cant This Court has hearing, cannot conclude contempt in court without counsel criminal defendant ready to that she was pronouncement the trial necessitates an examination [] of her to an abandonment proceed is aware amounted judge” as to whether the defendant Oliver, right representation. right representation. Oliver of his Cf. (“[I]t from the State, (Tex.Crim.App. apparent at 716 S.W.2d 1994). and the United law of this Court settled case request Supreme that failure to States ap- argues the record reflects The State voluntary not amount to the counsel does to coun- plicant was admonished of a known relinquishment or abandonment First, was in- the States claims she sel. ...”). right, right prior this to the formed of going I am “[a]nd when the stated ap correctly asserts that The State you, you going to need to have tell attorney to have plicant was not entitled you you attorney representing don’t tend time as represent her until such appointed to we do not find to business.” that she was court determined convey interpreted can be statement resources, financial Regardless of representation or applicant her however, to know that she entitled she contempt pro- pointment of counsel at the representation at the had a points place ceeding. The also State defendant—indigent or other hearing. A of facts where the trial the statement by coun represented to be wise—is entitled previously admon- “I believe had stated Crim. criminal matter. Tex.Code sel you retaining an ished about 1.051(a), (c); Johnson Proc.Ann. you you that I did not find that were told (Tex.App.—Austin 894 S.W.2d appoint you an [sic] so I would fact that error here was the pet.). no attorney.” Although the claimed applicant of failed to the trial court inform admonished of her have right. thorough of the rec- after a search presiding judges over Trial ord, we cannot find such admonishment. recognize that under should proceedings announced Finally, appointment of indigent, right to his applicant not understand did obvious counsel. un- proceedings. She “indigent,” “contempt,” the words derstand corpus habeas applicant’s writ of grant We “cumulation,” she concept nor and upon based that she be released and order testify could not be forced conviction for finding that her our stated she hearing. That tempt arising of that con- out incarceration and the any way not in ready proceed does was we have the reason which are void for viction representa- from either her detract stated. inform obligation to trial court’s tion or the right. dissenting. of that BAIRD, concurring Judge, and re illegally she is sug Applicant contends nothing in the record There 220th contempt in the order of strained an applicant intended to waive gest County. Specifical Bosque criminal District Court that no “[I]t is essential counsel. 1) ly, Therefore, question contends: her restraint violates at 43. S.W.2d statutes, Curry expressly Const. art. and various pre- did not reach being imprisoned because she is for the fail sented in the instant case: Is ille- 2) debt; and, deprived ure gally restrained? of counsel at hearing. plain language Under of the art. agree majority I 26.05(e), recoupment only is authorized represented by had to be counsel at “legal provided.” services Ante, at 836. Ad- legal provided services are not known until ditionally, majority I with the the criminal matter final. In becomes eases judge to inform of this Wilson, Curry such as the matter is final Ante, right. Therefore, join part 837. I acquitted prose- when the defendant is or the However, II majority opinion. of the for the cution is otherwise terminated. following part I reasons dissent to of the prosecution when the trial level ends in a majority opinion because I do not believe the sentence, may conviction and the matter be judge presently authorized to order far from over. such cases the defendant recoupment may file a motion for new trial. In such an event, the matter will not be final until the 26.05(e) Tex.Code Crim.ProcAnn. granted, motion was denied or overruled provides: operation And, of law. in the latter instanc- If the court determines that a defendant es, may pursue appeal. the defendant has financial resources enable him to legal normally These services will include offset in or in whole the costs of the facts, preparation of a statement of brief legal provided, including any services ex- appellant perhaps behalf of the and a motion penses costs, the court shall order the rehearing. legal may Additional services defendant to the amount that it finds appel- either the State or the pay.1 the defendant is able to And, discretionary lant seeks if such review. (Tex. Wilson, Curry 853 S.W.2d 40 granted, parties again review will Cr.App.1993), we considered whether a trial required to perhaps file briefs and travel to judge may recoupment seek of monies ex- present argument. Finally, Austin to oral pended legal representation for the of an decision, our services be re- indigent. Curry charged with involun- quired respond either file or to motion tary manslaughter, and received rehearing. Following acquittal, Curry counsel. Because, the costs of the services representation ordered for his and a subject provided in a criminal matter are payment plan recoup- was established for variables, they number of are undeter- Id., ment. grant- 853 S.W.2d at 42-43. We until minable the criminal matter becomes ed judge review to determine whether a trial Therefore, final. I would use this case to could expended order of monies following bright-line establish the rule re- on behalf of a defendant who had been ac- garding recoupment: Id., quitted. at 44. held S.W.2d article authorized the trial “to prosecution 1. If the trial level ends with repayment county expend- funds terminated, acquittal or is otherwise applicant’s appointed legal ed for defense is authorized and be- judge’s] virtue of determination that [the gin immediately; plicant financially able to offset those prosecution If the trial level ends with Curry, costs.” at 45. sentence, a conviction de- opts appeal, recoupment fendant not to though Even the trial had issued may begin is capias pro finum, authorized the warrant was with- filing time of drawn and the time for the a motion address whether Cur- ly illegally giving appeal for new trial or notice of restrained for failure to make Id., per expired; as order. has emphasis supplied 1. All is unless otherwise indi- cated. lawyer.” The hire a Applicant that the prosecution ends with

3. If the trial level not make her sentence, applicant that she did de- told and the a conviction lawyer. He payments, she would need opts appeal, recoupment is fendant that and she her if she understood asked begin until the authorized but not admonishment to This is the replied, “Yes.” issued; or, has mandate of affirmance when he told judge later referred which the prosecution ends with 4. If the trial level appoint an going to that he was not and sentence and the a conviction not because trial, judge grants a new or the case is many not told in so Though applicant was appeal in an appealed and the results right to that she had a words acquittal phase or reversal of some of applicant on notice judge’s put comments prosecution, trial level me attorney. It seems to needed an she until the occurrence is not authorized necessarily informed that such a statement 1,2, either or 3.2 And, had a to counsel. her that she instant criminal matter is not final The argue that the court again, does none of these events have occurred. because counsel. inform her of the failed to Therefore, is not authorized to short, majority grants on the relief Consequently, applicant recoupment. order And, by applicant. a claim not made basis of illegally restrained. had claimed that the court even she comments, respectfully I dis- With these counsel, appli- to inform her of majority opinion. I sent to I there- not be entitled to relief. cant would majority join Parts I and IIA of the fore OVERSTREET, MANSFIELD and but, Part respect, I dissent to opinion PRICE, JJ., join opinion. IIB. KELLER, Judge, concurring and

dissenting. agree that a defendant be held in violating an and confined for 26.05(e). agree made to art. I also legal repre- that a contemnor is entitled to TRUST; LIABILITY TEXAS MEDICAL in a But I sentation Company; The Medical Protective majority’s do not with the conclusion Physicians Ex Insurance American is entitled to relief from the Liability change; In Texas Medical contempt in order of this case. Association; Underwriting In surance majority determines that America; Corporation Dr. surance to relief she was not entitled Stephen Lesauvage; and Dr. Ted formed of her to have counsel at the Huang, Appellants, First, hearing. appli- that is not the basis cant’s claim. her Amended Petition COMPANY, ZURICH INSURANCE Corpus, alleges Writ Habeas Appellee. appoint violat- trial court’s failure to No. 03-96-00299-CV. rights constitutional ed her under various statutory provisions. She does not claim Texas, Appeals that she the court failed to inform her Austin. majority, had a to counsel. Since April 1997. it, accepts trial court’s as I understand May Rehearing Overruled indigent, appli- finding applicant was not 19, 1997. and June claim should fail—the court was cant’s non-indigent. appoint counsel to a Second, in her concedes Petition, trial court “insisted

Amended 42.12, either Tex.Code Crim.Proc.Ann. Additionally, in cases under I would hold that 11(a)(8) obtaining recoupment 43.03. or 3 the better method notes State must be today, a defendant we announce rule ready proceed with the representation, and informed however, record, it is hearing. From the

Case Details

Case Name: Ex Parte Gonzales

Court Name: Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Date Published: May 12, 1997

Citation: 945 S.W.2d 830

Docket Number: 72,606

Court Abbreviation: Tex. Crim. App.