Brian Keith Woods v. State
This text of Brian Keith Woods v. State (Brian Keith Woods v. State) 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
In The Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana
No. 06-20-00065-CR
BRIAN KEITH WOODS, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 71st District Court Harrison County, Texas Trial Court No. 18-0272X
Before Morriss, C.J., Burgess and Stevens, JJ. ORDER
Attorney Kimberly Miller Ryan was appointed to represent Appellant Brian Keith Woods
in the appeal of this matter. Ryan filed an Anders1 brief on Woods’s behalf and, in conjunction
with the filing of that brief, has filed a motion to withdraw as counsel. Currently pending before
this Court is a motion to substitute counsel filed by attorney Niles Illich. Illich represents in his
motion that he has been retained to represent Woods on appeal and asks that he be substituted for
Ryan as counsel of record in this matter. For the reasons set forth below, we have considered
and hereby grant Illich’s motion.
When an appellant who is represented on appeal by counsel later retains different
counsel, Rule 6.5(d) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure establishes the proper procedure
for accomplishing the withdrawal and substitution. TEX. R. APP. P. 6.5(d). Under Rule 6.5,
counsel of record—Ryan in this case—is required to file a motion to withdraw before newly
retained counsel may be substituted. Id. The Seventh Court of Appeals has aptly noted, “The
purpose of Rule 6.5 is to ensure that a party not be unwittingly left unrepresented before an
appellate court.” Medlock v. State, No. 07-15-00359-CR, 2015 WL 6939196 (Tex. App.—
Amarillo Nov. 9, 2015, order) (per curiam) (discussing procedure established by Rule 6.5 of
Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure for withdrawing and substituting counsel on appeal).
In this unique situation, Ryan has previously filed a motion to withdraw as counsel in
conjunction with the filing of her Anders brief. We have reviewed the circumstances as
represented in Illich’s motion to substitute counsel and are comfortable that Woods has received
1 Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). 2 the protection that Rule 6.5 was meant to provide. Further, Woods is free to retain counsel of his
choosing. We, therefore, in the interests of justice and judicial economy, (1) grant Ryan’s
motion to withdraw as counsel and (2) grant the motion to substitute Illich for Ryan as attorney
of record in this appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 6.5.
Illich is now appellate counsel in this matter. As such, we grant Illich’s request to strike
the Anders brief filed on Woods’s behalf in order that he may file a merit-based brief in its stead.
That brief shall be filed in this Court on or before October 15, 2020. We deny, as moot,
Woods’s motion to extend the deadline for filing a response to Ryan’s Anders brief.
IT IS SO ORDRED.
BY THE COURT
Date: September 15, 2020
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Brian Keith Woods v. State, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brian-keith-woods-v-state-texapp-2020.