indigency hearing in Texas

2012See Abdnor, 712 S.W.2d at 140-41 . 4 In his appellate brief, counsel for Dutson urges that although “the trial judge claimed in her order that the court provided the Appellant with an affidavit of indigence, [] there is no indication in the reporter’s record or clerk’s record of this ever happening and the undersigned does not recall ever being presented with such an affidavit by the trial judge.” The reporter’s record of the indigency hearing reflects that the motion for a free appellate record was filed in early January 2011, and at a hearing on Dutson’s motion for new trial held on January

1990Abdnor, 712 S.W.2d at 142 ; Abdnor, 653 S.W.2d at 794 n. 2.

2026See McFatridge v. State, 309 S.W.3d 1, 6 (Tex. Crim.

2010See id.

2010See Snoke v. State , 717 S.W.2d 5, 7 (Tex. Crim.

2010See Snoke v. State, 717 S.W.2d 5, 7 (Tex. Crim.

2004The supreme court has stated, “Although an affidavit of indigence is no longer used to invoke appellate jurisdiction, it is no less essential to an appeal, for if a contest to the affidavit is sustained, the appellant must either pay for the appellate record . . . or suffer dismissal of the appeal.” In the Interest of J.W. , 52 S.W.3d 730, 733 (Tex. 2001).

2004The supreme court has stated, “Although an affidavit of indigence is no longer used to invoke appellate jurisdiction, it is no less essential to an appeal, for if a contest to the affidavit is sustained, the appellant must either pay for the appellate record ... or suffer dismissal of the appeal.” In the Interest of J.W., 52 S.W.3d 730, 733 (Tex.2001).

2004See B.A.C., 4 S.W.3d at 323-25 . 4 After the contests were filed, however, the trial court was required to conduct a hearing and Monroy had the burden of proving the allegations in his affidavit.

2004Id.

2004Risker v. Comm’n for Lawyer Discipline , 94 S.W.3d 625, 631 (Tex. App.--Houston [14th Dist.] 2002, pet. denied).

2004Risker v. Comm’n for Lawyer Discipline, 94 S.W.3d 625, 631 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2002, pet. denied).

2000See Id.

2000See Id.

1995See Dugard v. State, 688 S.W.2d 524, 528 (Tex.Crim.App.1985).

1995See Dugard v. State , 688 S.W.2d 524, 528 (Tex. Crim.

2026See Basaldua v. Hadden, 298 S.W.3d 238, 241 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2009, no pet.) (reviewing trial court’s order sustaining contest to indigency under abuse-of-discretion standard); see also Bui v. Beck & Co. Real Estate Servs., Inc., No. 03-16-00882-CV, 2017 WL 279615 , at *2 (Tex. App.—Austin Jan. 19, 2017, no pet.) (per curiam) (mem. op.) (same).

2025However, “we must review the trial court’s ruling in light of what was before the court at the time the ruling was made.” Allen v. State, 473 S.W.3d 426 , 443–44 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2015, pet. granted) (citing Willover v. State, 70 S.W.3d 841, 845 (Tex. Crim.

2024App. 1983) (“In its treatment of the merits of appellant’s mandamus application the court erred in applying an indigency test of its own creation, a standard which is in conflict with this Court’s pronouncements and which both of the opposing parties urge us to reject.”); see also Lubbock Cnty., Tex. v. Trammel’s Lubbock Bail Bonds, 80 S.W.3d 580, 585 (Tex. 2002); Swilley v. McCain, 374 S.W.2d 871, 875 (Tex. 1964) (“After a principle, rule or proposition of law has been squarely decided by the Supreme Court, or the highest court of the State having jurisdiction of the particular case, the deci

2024App. 1983) (“In its treatment of the merits of appellant’s mandamus application the court erred in applying an indigency test of its own creation, a standard which is in conflict with this Court’s pronouncements and which both of the opposing parties urge us to reject.”); see also Lubbock Cnty., Tex. v. Trammel’s Lubbock Bail Bonds, 80 S.W.3d 580, 585 (Tex. 2002); Swilley v. McCain, 374 S.W.2d 871, 875 (Tex. 1964) (“After a principle, rule or proposition of law has been squarely decided by the Supreme Court, or the highest court of the State having jurisdiction of the particular case, the deci

2022Accordingly, Respondent denied her request for a 4 also In re Lankford, 501 S.W.3d 681, 690 (Tex. App.—Tyler 2016, orig. proceeding) (declining to address issue that was unsupported by any substantive analysis); Stanton, 2016 WL 7166550 , at *5.

2018I, § 18 (“No person shall ever be imprisoned for debt.”). 14 Ryland Enter., Inc. v. Weatherspoon, 355 S.W.3d 664, 665 (Tex. 2011) (per curiam); see also Verburgt v. Dorner, 959 S.W.2d 615, 616 (Tex. 1997) (“appellate courts should not dismiss an appeal for a procedural defect whenever any arguable interpretation of the Rules of Appellate Procedure would preserve the appeal”). 6 exercised its authority to invite a satisfactory merits-based submission of the case by requesting additional briefing addressing the mother’s indigency defense in the correct procedural form.15 Because the court fails

2018I, § 18 (“No person shall ever be imprisoned for debt.”). 14 Ryland Enter., Inc. v. Weatherspoon, 355 S.W.3d 664, 665 (Tex. 2011) (per curiam); see also Verburgt v. Dorner, 959 S.W.2d 615, 616 (Tex. 1997) (“appellate courts should not dismiss an appeal for a procedural defect whenever any arguable interpretation of the Rules of Appellate Procedure would preserve the appeal”). 6 exercised its authority to invite a satisfactory merits-based submission of the case by requesting additional briefing addressing the mother’s indigency defense in the correct procedural form.15 Because the court fails

2016Castillo v. State, 595 S.W.2d 552, 554 (Tex. Crim.

2011See id. at 452 3 The record does not indicate when the trial court first became aware that Akin lacked counsel, but Akin signed a document entitled ―Court’s Admonitions to Defendant Not Represented by a Lawyer‖ within thirty days after the motion to revoke was filed. 8 (holding the defendant not indigent without having a separate indigency hearing).

2011See id. at 452 3 The record does not indicate when the trial court first became aware that Akin lacked counsel, but Akin signed a document entitled ―Court’s Admonitions to Defendant Not Represented by a Lawyer‖ within thirty days after the motion to revoke was filed. 8 (holding the defendant not indigent without having a separate indigency hearing).

2009The Court states the issue in this proceeding succinctly in the opening sentence: “Appellant challenges the trial court’s determination under section 263.405(d) of the Family Code that she is not indigent.” I have little doubt that if we reviewed the record upon which the trial court purported to rely, which is the record of the trial court proceedings for termination of her parental rights, there is more than enough evidence to meet the test for indigency as stated by the Texas Supreme Court that “the fundamental requirement for asserting indigence has remained the same: the applicant must de

2009The Court states the issue in this proceeding succinctly in the opening sentence: “Appellant challenges the trial court’s determination under section 263.405(d) of the Family Code that she is not indigent.” I have little doubt that if we reviewed the record upon which the trial court purported to rely, which is the record of the trial court proceedings for termination of her parental rights, there is more than enough evidence to meet the test for indigency as stated by the Texas Supreme Court that “the fundamental requirement for asserting indigence has remained the same: the applicant must de

2003On January 31, 2002, this Court ordered the court reporter to file, without charge to appellant, the reporter’s record of the indigency hearing in the trial court, in accordance with In re Arroyo , 988 S.W.2d 737, 739 (Tex. 1998).

1999In Gray v. State, 928 S.W.2d 561, 562-68 (Tex.Crim.App.1996), the Court of Criminal Appeals remanded a case to the trial court for an indigency hearing, saying: If the [trial] court finds that [the defendant is indigent], it must provide him with a statement of facts at no charge, after which the time limits for prosecuting his appeal shall be calculated as in other cases.

1994See Kahmann v. State, 873 S.W.2d 785, 789 (Tex.App.—Austin 1994, pet. filed).

1991See, e.g., Abdnor v. State, 712 S.W.2d 186,142 (Tex.Crim.App.1986); Taylor v. State, 799 S.W.2d 445, 446 (Tex.App.— Houston [1st Dist.] 1990, no pet.).

1987This fact has no bearing on our disposition of the case since appellant made his alleged indigency known to the trial court in a timely manner. *454 Harriet v. State, 572 S.W.2d 535, 537 (Tex.Cr.App.1978). 3 .