Larry Alen Conway a/k/a Larry Alan Conway, Larry Allen Conway, Larry Conway, Larry Allan Conway v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 266th District Court of Erath County

11th Court of Appeals

Eastland, Texas

Opinion

Larry Alen Conway a/k/a Larry Alan Conway,

Larry Allen Conway, Larry Conway, Larry Allan Conway

Appellant

Vs. No. 11-02-00008-CR B Appeal from Erath County

State of Texas

Appellee

The jury convicted appellant of burglary of a habitation, found the enhancement paragraphs to be true, and assessed punishment at 60 years confinement. In his sole point of error, appellant argues that the trial court erred by not hearing the motion to withdraw as counsel, which was filed by trial counsel at appellant=s request. We affirm.

Motion to Withdraw

A trial court=s decision to allow counsel to withdraw is reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard. King v. State, 29 S.W.3d 556, 566 (Tex.Cr.App.2000); Solis v. State, 792 S.W.2d 95, 100 (Tex.Cr.App.1990). An appellate court will not reverse a trial court=s ruling unless that ruling falls outside the zone of reasonable disagreement. Burden v. State, 55 S.W.3d 608, 615 (Tex.Cr.App.2001).

On September 4, 2001, the trial court appointed counsel for appellant. Appellant was arraigned, and a pretrial conference was held on October 9, 2001. Appellant and the State announced ready for trial, and the trial court set the case for a jury trial on October 15, 2001. The trial court passed the case on October 15 to give appellant more time to prepare, and the court reset the case for trial on November 13, 2001. On November 7, 2001, appellant=s counsel filed two motions: (1) a first amended motion for continuance and (2) a motion to withdraw as counsel. The record does not show that appellant requested a hearing on the motions prior to the date of trial. The record also does not indicate that the trial court was made aware of the motions prior to November 13, 2001. On November 8, 2001, the day after filing the motion to withdraw as counsel, the same counsel submitted a Aplea bargain pass agreement@ to the court, indicating that appellant would plead guilty to the charge. However, appellant subsequently decided to plead not guilty. Prior to commencement of the trial on November 13, the trial court heard appellant=s motion for continuance and his counsel=s motion to withdraw as counsel. The court noted that the motions could have been presented at the pretrial conference and that Athe jury [was] standing out here in the hallway.@ The trial court denied both motions as not being timely filed.

Appellant complains on appeal that he was not allowed to speak when the trial court heard his counsel=s motion to withdraw on November 13. Both motions were filed just 6 days prior to trial. In exercising its discretion, the trial court could consider whether allowing a change of counsel would obstruct the judicial process or interfere with the administration of justice. King v. State, supra at 566. At the pretrial hearing on October 9, 2001, no motions regarding withdrawal of counsel had been filed. Apparently, appellant decided to plead guilty and then changed his mind. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying the motion to withdraw on the basis that it was not timely filed. We overrule appellant=s sole point of error.

This Court=s Ruling

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

TERRY McCALL

JUSTICE

December 19, 2002

Do not publish. See TEX.R.APP.P. 47.3(b).

Panel consists of: Arnot, C.J., and

McCall, J., and McCloud, S.J.[1]

[1]Austin McCloud, Retired Chief Justice, Court of Appeals, 11th District of Texas at Eastland sitting by assignment.