Orlando Bell v. The State of Texas Appeal from 21st District Court of Burleson County (memorandum opinion per curiam)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
In The Court of Appeals Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo ________________________ No. 07-18-00173-CR ________________________ ORLANDO BELL, APPELLANT V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE On Appeal from the 21st District Court Burleson County, Texas Trial Court No. 14,753; Honorable J.D. Langley, Presiding May 15, 2018 ABATEMENT AND REMAND Before CAMPBELL, PIRTLE, and PARKER, JJ. Appellant, Orlando Bell, was convicted by a jury of failure to comply with sex offender registration requirements, enhanced by two prior felonies,1 and sentenced to fifty 1 See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 62.102(b)(2) (West 2018). See also TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 12.42(d) (West Supp. 2017). years confinement. The appellate record has been filed and Appellant’s brief is due to be filed on or before June 1, 2018. Appellant is represented by court-appointed counsel. Pending before this court is Appellant’s pro se Motion [to] Remove Counsel in which he complains of ineffective assistance of counsel and various alleged failures or omissions by counsel in representing him. Appellant’s complaints require fact findings that this court is not in a position to render. Furthermore, the trial court has the responsibility for appointing counsel for indigent defendants as well as the authority to relieve or replace appointed counsel upon a finding of good cause. See TEX. CODE. CRIM. PROC. ANN. arts. 1.051(d), 26.04(j)(2) (West Supp. 2017). See also Enriquez v. State, 999 S.W.2d 906, 907 (Tex. App.—Waco 1999, no pet.). Consequently, we now abate this appeal and remand the cause to the trial court for further proceedings. Upon remand, the trial court shall, by whatever means necessary, determine the following: 1. whether Appellant still desires to prosecute his appeal; 2. whether good cause exists for removal of his court-appointed counsel; and 3. whether Appellant remains indigent and is entitled to appointment of new counsel. Should the trial court determine that Appellant does want to continue this appeal, but he is not entitled to new appointed counsel, it should enter an order denying his pro se motion and cause that order to be filed with the District Clerk. Should the trial court determine that Appellant does want to continue this appeal and that he is entitled to new court2 appointed counsel, it should enter an order granting his pro se motion and cause that order to be filed with the District Clerk along with a new order appointing counsel, stating the name, address, phone number, email address, and state bar number of newlyappointed counsel. The trial court shall cause that order, and any other necessary orders, to be included in a supplemental clerk’s record to be filed with the clerk of this court by June 8, 2018. The current appellate deadline of June 1, 2018, for the filing of Appellant’s brief is suspended. If new counsel is not appointed, Appellant’s brief shall be due thirty days from the date of the order denying Appellant’s pro se motion. If new counsel is appointed, Appellant’s brief shall be due thirty days from the date of the order of appointment. It is so ordered. Per Curiam Do not publish. 3
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.
