CHRISTOPHER CHUBASCO WILKINS v. THE STATE OF TEXAS Appeal from Case 1002038D of the 297th Judicial District Court of Tarrant County Womack, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Keller, P.J., and Meyers, Price, Hervey. Holcomb, and Cochran JJ., joined. Johnson and Keasler, JJ., concurred in the judgment. In March, 2008, a jury convicted the appellant, Christopher Chubasco Wilkins, of capital murder. Pursuant to the jury's findings on future-dangerousness and mitigation special issues, the trial court sentenced the appellant to death. The appellant now raises sixteen points of error (original)

Texas Judiciary Online - HTML Opinion     Close This Window

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NO. AP-75,878

CHRISTOPHER C. WILKINS, Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

ON DIRECT APPEAL FROM CAUSE NO. 1002038D

IN THE 297TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

TARRANT COUNTY

Per Curiam.

O R D E R

The above-styled and numbered cause is pending before this Court as a result of appellant's capital murder conviction and resulting sentence of death in the 297th Judicial District Court of Tarrant County, Cause No. 1002038D, styled The State of Texas v. Christopher C. Wilkins. After pronouncing sentence, the trial judge advised appellant that his case would be automatically appealed to the Court of Criminal Appeals. The judge found that appellant was still indigent and was entitled to appointed counsel to represent him on appeal. At that time, appellant requested on the record that trial counsel Wes Ball be allowed to continue representing him, and Ball joined in that request. The judge found good cause to retain Wes Ball as appellate counsel in the case due to his experience and familiarity with the case. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 26.052(k). Appellant's direct appeal brief is currently due to be filed in this Court on or before March 23, 2009.

However, on January 16, 2009, this Court received from appellant a "Motion to Fire Direct Appeal Attorney" due to a conflict of interest. Specifically, appellant asserts that his counsel has a conflict of interest because he personally wanted to see appellant convicted and sentenced to death. Further, appellant asserts that counsel represented, and built a personal relationship with, one of the defendants involved in one of the extraneous offenses the State used at the punishment phase of appellant's trial. Appellant asserts that, because of this relationship and his desire to see appellant convicted, counsel was blatantly ineffective in his representation of appellant at trial, and will continue to be ineffective on appeal.

Under these circumstances, we will abate the appeal and remand the case to the trial court to investigate and develop a record on appellant's allegations. If the trial court determines that no conflict of interest exists, then current counsel will continue his representation, and appellant's brief will be due in this Court within thirty (30) days from the date the case is returned to this Court. If the trial court determines that a conflict or some other reason exists to remove counsel from the case, then the trial court will release Ball from his duties and appoint new counsel to represent appellant on direct appeal. If the trial court appoints new counsel, appellant's direct appeal brief will be due in this Court within sixty (60) days from the date the case is returned to this Court.

The trial court shall send to this Court, within thirty (30) days of the date of this order, the record of the proceedings and any findings or conclusions made with regard to this matter. No motions for extensions shall be entertained.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2009.

Do not publish