An indigent who wants to appeal has a right to have counsel appointed to assist in presenting his case before the court of appeals. The appointment ends once the decision of the intermediate court becomes final. The right of the appointed counsel to further compensation under art. 26.05 C.C.P. also terminates. <BR><BR>Even so, I frequently see PDR's filed by the "court appointed attorney for appellant". And, I believe my judge (who is otherwise renowned for his thrift concerning appointments, see <I>Mullings</I>, 891 S.W.2d 15,<I>Behee</I>, 987 S.W.2d 903 and <I>Gonzales</I>, 945 S.W.2d 830) frequently, though perhaps not always, authorizes some payment for these services. While I only occasionally file a response to these PDR's, I guess I would prefer they not be filed and thus that the court would not pay anything (offer no incentive) for filing them. What is occurring in your jurisdiction? I am not referring to situations where discretionary review is actually granted.Indigent PDRs are rarely filedIndigent PDRs are frequently filed, though counsel are not compensatedPDRs are frequently filed; Counsel are compensated as though appointedIndigent PDRs are often filed, Counsel are compensated some of the time

Most of the time, it seems to be a point of honor (yes some defense attorneys have a sense of honor), and they file a PDR because the issue is important to them. They generally do not receive payment unless PDR is granted.

Just to elaborate a little, I'd estimate we get PDRS in about 75% of felony cases, about 1/2 pro se, and 1/2 by appointed counsel who feel compelled to do so. I don't think anyone gets paid. So, I picked #2.

I'd guess the defense attorneys I see file PDRs about 90 percent of the time in felony cases. I never check to see if the courts pay them but I assume that they do.

BTW, I've gone down fighting at least once on the claim that Ex parte Fontenot, 3 S.W.3d 32 (tca 1999) was wrongly decided. See Wainwright v. Torna, 102 S.Ct. 1300, 1301 (1982)(no right to counsel "to pursue discretionary" review). Maybe, they will fix this someday and get fewer frivolous PDRs.

David: I am confused by your post. You were arguing Judge Johnson was right about 11.07 sec. 4? You were arguing Fontenot was wrong about how Torna applies to art. 26.04? You were arguing Wilson was wrongly decided? You were arguing Peterson was wrongly decided (I did too at one time)?

Back to the poll. To make it anywhere close to scientific I would like to hear from Harris, Bexar, Cameron, El Paso, Collin, Denton, and Travis Counties. I certainly appeciate the five who took the time to vote.