SIMON, THOMAS ALLEN Appeal from 424th District Court of Burnet County (other per curiam)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TEXAS NO. WR-83,783-01 IN RE THOMAS ALLEN SIMON, Relator ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF MANDAMUS CAUSE NO. 42908 TH IN THE 424 DISTRICT COURT OF BURNET COUNTY Per curiam. OPINION Relator filed a motion for leave to file an application for a writ of mandamus, pursuant to the original jurisdiction of this Court. The application requests that we issue a writ of mandamus in the underlying case, ordering the district court to vacate its order removing appointed counsel. Relator first filed a petition for writ of mandamus in the Third Court of Appeals. In re Thomas Allen Simon, No. 03-15-00500-CR (Tex. App.—Austin, Aug. 25, 2015) (not designated for publication). The Court of Appeals denied relief without comment. Id. On August 26, 2015, this Court stayed the underlying proceedings, held this application in abeyance, and ordered the Honorable Judge of the 424th Judicial District Court of Burnet County to respond. The court filed a response explaining that he removed appointed counsel because of counsel’s statement that he would not be effective if the court did not grant his motion for additional funds. While a defendant does not have a right to counsel of choice when being appointed counsel, once that attorney-client relationship is established, “the right-to-counsel provisions of the respective constitutions prevents the trial court from unreasonably interfering with the counsel duly appointed.” Stearnes v. Clinton, 780 S.W.2d 216, 223 (Tex. Crim. App. 1989). We find that counsel’s statement regarding ineffective assistance of counsel, if not granted funds, does not rise to the level necessary to allow the trial court to remove counsel over his client’s objection. We conditionally grant mandamus relief and direct the Respondent to vacate his order removing Tracy Cluck as Respondent’s appointed counsel. The writ of mandamus will issue only in the event the Respondent fails to comply within thirty days of the date of this opinion. Filed: November 4, 2015 Do not publish
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
