X

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Click here for the full text of this decision FACTS:In this court’s original opinion, the court concluded that Hoback’s counsel had waived Hoback’s first two issues at oral argument. Hoback’s counsel then filed a motion for rehearing, stating that she did not intentionally waive these issues and intended only to waive oral argument and have the court rely on her brief. Given that the argument was unrecorded, the two issues were fully briefed, and counsel disputes any intent to waive, this court granted rehearing to consider Hoback’s other two issues. HOLDING: Hoback contends the trial court erred in denying his request for a jury trial. In reviewing Hoback’s claim that his counsel was ineffective in failing to make a timely jury demand, the majority and concurrence disagreed as to whether Hoback’s counsel actually requested a jury trial. However, even if there was a proper jury request, Hoback waived any error because he failed to object when the trial court proceeded with a bench trial. Hoback complains the trial court erred in denying counsel’s request to withdraw from representation of one of the parties based on a conflict of interest. In determining whether a conflict of interest exists between parents in a termination suit, the trial court must decide “whether there is a substantial risk that the appointed counsel’s obligations to one parent would materially and adversely affect his or her obligations to the other parent.” In re B.L.D., 113 S.W.3d 340 (Tex. 2003). The court reviews a trial court’s determination of whether there was a conflict of interest for an abuse of discretion. In reviewing Hoback’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim based on this alleged conflict of interest, the court determines that the record in this case shows no substantial risk that counsel’s obligations to one of the parties would materially and adversely affect her representation of Hoback. The court finds that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying counsel’s request to withdraw. OPINION:Yates, J.; Yates, Anderson, and Hudson, JJ.

Want to continue reading?
Become a Free ALM Digital Reader.

Benefits of a Digital Membership:

  • Free access to 3 articles* every 30 days
  • Access to the entire ALM network of websites
  • Unlimited access to the ALM suite of newsletters
  • Build custom alerts on any search topic of your choosing
  • Search by a wide range of topics

*May exclude premium content
Already have an account?

 
 

ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2020 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.