Addison Douglas Mays v. the State of Texas
This text of Addison Douglas Mays v. the State of Texas (Addison Douglas Mays v. the State of Texas) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
Order entered January 20, 2023
In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05-21-01033-CR
ADDISON DOUGLAS MAYS, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 366th Judicial District Court Collin County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 366-84413-2019
ORDER
Before the Court is appellant’s January 3, 2023 pro se motion to appoint
counsel. In his motion, appellant asserts his new counsel has not communicated
with him despite his efforts to communicate with her. He also asserts that his
former counsel, who is employed by the Collin County District Attorney’s office,
is representing the State in his case. We DENY appellant’s motion, but provide
other relief as follows. Due to a clerical error that has been corrected, former counsel was
inadvertently included on the Court’s service list and has received copies of orders
in this case. Former counsel is not representing the State in this matter. Our records
show the State is represented by Criminal District Attorney Greg Willis, Assistant
Criminal District Attorney Lisa Braxton, and Assistant Criminal District Attorney
Amy Sue Melo Murphy.
Our records show that on August 30, 2022, the Court entered an order
permitting former counsel to withdraw from representation because he was taking
a position with the Collin County District Attorney’s office. The Court abated the
case to the trial court for appointment of new counsel. The Court’s abatement order
further provided that within thirty days of appointment, new counsel should review
the record and notify the Court in writing whether counsel intended to: (1) file a
new brief replacing the January 28, 2022 brief filed by former counsel; (2) file a
supplemental brief; or (3) adopt the January 28, 2022 brief as filed.
The trial court appointed Stephanie Duecker Hudson as appellant’s new
counsel. By order entered October 26, 2022, the Court ordered Ms. Hudson to
provide, by November 18, 2022, the written notification electing whether to file a
new brief or else supplement or adopt the existing brief. Ms. Hudson did not file a
written notification. On December 20, 2022, the Court entered an order stating that
the Court would presume Ms. Hudson was adopting the existing brief and would
–2– submit the appeal on that brief. Appellant now contends that counsel has not
communicated with him since her appointment.
Under the circumstances, the Court cannot determine whether appellant is
receiving the effective assistance of counsel. Accordingly, we ORDER the trial
court to conduct a hearing to determine the status of this appeal. The trial court
shall make appropriate findings and recommendations and determine why
appointed counsel has not notified the Court regarding whether she intends to file a
new appellant’s brief, supplement the January 28, 2022 brief former counsel filed
for appellant, or adopt the January 28, 2022 brief as filed; and to determine
whether appointed counsel is representing appellant or whether she has abandoned
the appeal. If the trial court cannot obtain appellant’s presence at the hearing, the
trial court shall conduct the hearing in appellant’s absence. See Meza v. State, 742
S.W.2d 708 (Tex. App.–Corpus Christi 1987, no pet.) (per curiam). If appellant is
indigent, the trial court is ORDERED to take such measures as may be necessary
to assure effective representation, which may include appointment of new counsel.
We ORDER the trial court to transmit a record of the proceedings, which
shall include written findings and recommendations, to this Court within THIRTY
DAYS of the date of this order.
–3– This appeal is ABATED to allow the trial court to comply with the above
order. The appeal shall be reinstated when the findings are received or at such
other time as the Court deems appropriate.
We DIRECT the Clerk of the Court to send copies of this order to: the
Honorable Tom Nowak, Presiding Judge, 366th Judicial District Court; Stephanie
Duecker Hudson, counsel for appellant; Amy Sue Melo Murphy, assistant criminal
district attorney; and appellant Addison Douglas Mays, TDCJ No. 02373093, Beto
Unit, 1391 FM 3328, Tennessee Colony, Texas 75880.
/s/ DENNISE GARCIA JUSTICE
–4–
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Addison Douglas Mays v. the State of Texas, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/addison-douglas-mays-v-the-state-of-texas-texapp-2023.