EX PARTE FRANKLIN WILLIAM LAMBERT (other)

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS 
OF TEXAS 

NO. WR-69,058-02 
EX PARTE FRANKLIN WILLIAM LAMBERT, Applicant
ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
CAUSE NO. 968321 IN THE 208TH DISTRICT COURT 
FROM HARRIS COUNTY 
Per curiam.O R D E R

Pursuant to the provisions of Article 11.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, the clerk of the trial court transmitted to this Court this application for a writ of habeas corpus. Ex parte Young, 418 S.W.2d 824, 826 (Tex. Crim. App. 1967). Applicant was convicted of aggravated robbery and sentenced to twenty years' imprisonment. The Fourteenth Court of Appeals affirmed his conviction. Lambert v. State, No. 14-06-00313-CR (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2007, no pet.).

Applicant contends, among other things, that he was denied his Sixth Amendment right to counsel of choice at his adjudication of guilt hearing. On September 16, 2009, we remanded this application for findings of fact and conclusions of law. On remand, the trial court found that at Applicant's adjudication of guilt hearing Ramond Howard requested a continuance so he could substitute in as counsel of record and that his request for a continuance was intended to delay the proceedings. On this record, we conclude that Applicant was not denied his Sixth Amendment right to counsel of choice.

If a defendant is denied his Sixth Amendment right to counsel of choice, this deprivation qualifies as structural error. United States v. Gonzalez-Lopez, 548 U.S. 140, 150 (2006). In these cases, harmless-error analysis is not appropriate. In Applicant's case, the trial court denied his request for a continuance at the adjudication of guilt hearing and concluded that he was not harmed as a result of this denial. We disagree with this conclusion in so far as it applies a harmless-error standard to Applicant's claim. With these words, we deny relief.

Filed: April 28, 2010

Do not publish