indigence hearing in Texas

2004See In re Arroyo, 988 S.W.2d 737 (Tex.1998).

2004See In re Arroyo, 988 S.W.2d 737 (Tex.1998).

2015See id.

2015Id. 22 This Court has adopted a two-step process to guide courts in making indigency determinations for purposes of a free record for appeal.

2004See Snoke v. State, 717 S.W.2d 5, 6 (Tex.Crim.App.1986). .

2004See Snoke v. State, 717 S.W.2d 5, 6 (Tex.Crim.App.1986). [3] At this time Watts also stated that he still considered himself to be under oath.

2014Id.

2005See Ex parte Brewery, 677 S.W.2d 533, 536 (Tex. Crim.App.1984), overruled on other grounds, Awadelkariem v. State, 974 S.W.2d 721 (Tex. Crim.App.1998); Hall v. State, 698 S.W.2d 150, 152 (Tex.Crim.App.1985); State v. Kelley, 20 S.W.3d 147, 150 (Tex.App.-Texarkana 2000, no pet.). *281 We are aware that the Court of Criminai Appeals in Whitehead v. State, 130 S.W.3d 866 , 874 n. 34 (Tex.Crim.App.2004), observed a conflict between some case law and Rule 25.2(g) of the Rules of Appellate Procedure as follows: The notice of appeal was filed on February 12, the clerk’s record of the indigence hearin

2015We are not prepared to hold that the trial court erred by allowing Father to proceed to trial without an attorney or by not appointing trial counsel in the face of Father’s resistance. 9 172 S.W.3d at 185–86. 10 Id. at 185. 8 Absence of Faretta 11-type Warnings In his alternative point, Father contends that the trial court erred by not warning him about the dangers and disadvantages of self-representation and by not ensuring that his waiver of trial counsel was knowing and intelligent.

2015We are not prepared to hold that the trial court erred by allowing Father to proceed to trial without an attorney or by not appointing trial counsel in the face of Father’s resistance. 9 172 S.W.3d at 185–86. 10 Id. at 185. 8 Absence of Faretta 11-type Warnings In his alternative point, Father contends that the trial court erred by not warning him about the dangers and disadvantages of self-representation and by not ensuring that his waiver of trial counsel was knowing and intelligent.

2013See Abdnor v. Ovard, 653 S.W.2d 793, 794 (Tex.Crim.App.1983); see also Staten v. State, 662 S.W.2d 672, 674 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1983, no pet.) (holding that “the individual’s financial status and not that of relatives or other sources” is the appropriate inquiry for indigence).

2013See Abdnor v. Ovard, 653 S.W.2d 793, 794 (Tex.Crim.App.1983); see also Staten v. State, 662 S.W.2d 672, 674 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1983, no pet.) (holding that “the individual’s financial status and not that of relatives or other sources” is the appropriate inquiry for indigence).

2012See In re C.H.C., 331 S.W.3d at 429 . 8 In sum, we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by sustaining the contest to appellant’s indigence claim.

2010However, in the opposite situation where a defendant was initially found indigent, the Court of Criminal Appeals observed, “There is always the possibility that appellant’s financial situation has changed and he is no longer indigent.” Snoke v. State, 780 S.W.2d 210, 214 (Tex.Crim.App.1989); accord Castillo v. State, 595 S.W.2d 552, 554 (Tex.Crim.App. [Panel Op.] 1980) (“a year has passed since the hearing was held on appellant’s motion for a free record and there is always the possibility that his employment situation and financial condition have improved”).

2010See Castillo, 595 S.W.2d at 554 (“If the trial court is placed on notice that there may have been such a change that would alter his indigent status, the trial court may hold a hearing to take such circumstances into consideration.”).

2010However, in the opposite situation where a defendant was initially found indigent, the Court of Criminal Appeals observed, “There is always the possibility that appellant’s financial situation has changed and he is no longer indigent.” Snoke v. State, 780 S.W.2d 210, 214 (Tex.Crim.App.1989); accord Castillo v. State, 595 S.W.2d 552, 554 (Tex.Crim.App. [Panel Op.] 1980) (“a year has passed since the hearing was held on appellant’s motion for a free record and there is always the possibility that his employment situation and financial condition have improved”).

2005See Ex parte Brewery, 677 S.W.2d 533, 536 (Tex. Crim.App.1984), overruled on other grounds, Awadelkariem v. State, 974 S.W.2d 721 (Tex. Crim.App.1998); Hall v. State, 698 S.W.2d 150, 152 (Tex.Crim.App.1985); State v. Kelley, 20 S.W.3d 147, 150 (Tex.App.-Texarkana 2000, no pet.). *281 We are aware that the Court of Criminai Appeals in Whitehead v. State, 130 S.W.3d 866 , 874 n. 34 (Tex.Crim.App.2004), observed a conflict between some case law and Rule 25.2(g) of the Rules of Appellate Procedure as follows: The notice of appeal was filed on February 12, the clerk’s record of the indigence hearin

2005See Ex parte Brewery, 677 S.W.2d 533, 536 (Tex. Crim.App.1984), overruled on other grounds, Awadelkariem v. State, 974 S.W.2d 721 (Tex. Crim.App.1998); Hall v. State, 698 S.W.2d 150, 152 (Tex.Crim.App.1985); State v. Kelley, 20 S.W.3d 147, 150 (Tex.App.-Texarkana 2000, no pet.). *281 We are aware that the Court of Criminai Appeals in Whitehead v. State, 130 S.W.3d 866 , 874 n. 34 (Tex.Crim.App.2004), observed a conflict between some case law and Rule 25.2(g) of the Rules of Appellate Procedure as follows: The notice of appeal was filed on February 12, the clerk’s record of the indigence hearin

2005See Ex parte Brewery, 677 S.W.2d 533, 536 (Tex. Crim.App.1984), overruled on other grounds, Awadelkariem v. State, 974 S.W.2d 721 (Tex. Crim.App.1998); Hall v. State, 698 S.W.2d 150, 152 (Tex.Crim.App.1985); State v. Kelley, 20 S.W.3d 147, 150 (Tex.App.-Texarkana 2000, no pet.). *281 We are aware that the Court of Criminai Appeals in Whitehead v. State, 130 S.W.3d 866 , 874 n. 34 (Tex.Crim.App.2004), observed a conflict between some case law and Rule 25.2(g) of the Rules of Appellate Procedure as follows: The notice of appeal was filed on February 12, the clerk’s record of the indigence hearin

2005See Ex parte Brewery, 677 S.W.2d 533, 536 (Tex. Crim.App.1984), overruled on other grounds, Awadelkariem v. State, 974 S.W.2d 721 (Tex. Crim.App.1998); Hall v. State, 698 S.W.2d 150, 152 (Tex.Crim.App.1985); State v. Kelley, 20 S.W.3d 147, 150 (Tex.App.-Texarkana 2000, no pet.). *281 We are aware that the Court of Criminai Appeals in Whitehead v. State, 130 S.W.3d 866 , 874 n. 34 (Tex.Crim.App.2004), observed a conflict between some case law and Rule 25.2(g) of the Rules of Appellate Procedure as follows: The notice of appeal was filed on February 12, the clerk’s record of the indigence hearin