Bruce Edward Gorden v. State

Court of Appeals of Texas

Bruce Edward Gorden v. State

DecidedApril 12, 2016

Docket01-16-00088-CR

StatusPublished

This text of Bruce Edward Gorden v. State (Bruce Edward Gorden 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.

Bluebook

Bruce Edward Gorden v. State, (Tex. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

Cause number: 01-15-00088-CR Style: Bruce Edward Gorden v. The State of Texas Date motion filed: March 31, 2015 Type of motion: Unopposed Motion to Substitute Counsel Party filing motion: Appellant Document to be filed:

Is appeal accelerated? No

If motion to extend time: Original due date: Number of previous extensions granted: Current Due date: Date Requested:

Ordered that motion is:

 Granted If document is to be filed, document due:  Absent extraordinary circumstances, the Court will not grant additional motions to extend time  Denied  Dismissed (e.g., want of jurisdiction, moot)  Other: _____________________________________ The motion does not show that it was delivered to appellant “in person or mailed—both by certified and by first- class mail” at his last known address. See TEX. R. APP. P. 6.5(b), (d). Accordingly, we deny the motion to substitute counsel. By filing this motion, Seth Kretzer has appeared as counsel of record for appellant. See TEX. R. APP. P. 6.2, 9.1. Sorcha Landau remains as appellant’s lead counsel until new lead counsel is designated or a motion to withdraw or substitute counsel that complies with Rule 6.5 is filed and granted. See TEX. R. APP. P. 6.1(c), 6.5.

Judge's signature: /s/ Terry Jennings 

Date: April 12, 2016

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Cause number: 01-15-00088-CR Style: Bruce Edward Gorden v. The State of Texas Date motion filed: March 31, 2015 Type of motion: Unopposed Motion to Substitute Counsel Party filing motion: Appellant Document to be filed:

Is appeal accelerated? No

If motion to extend time: Original due date: Number of previous extensions granted: Current Due date: Date Requested:

Ordered that motion is:

 Granted If document is to be filed, document due:  Absent extraordinary circumstances, the Court will not grant additional motions to extend time  Denied  Dismissed (e.g., want of jurisdiction, moot)  Other: _____________________________________ The motion does not show that it was delivered to appellant “in person or mailed—both by certified and by first- class mail” at his last known address. See TEX. R. APP. P. 6.5(b), (d). Accordingly, we deny the motion to substitute counsel. By filing this motion, Seth Kretzer has appeared as counsel of record for appellant. See TEX. R. APP. P. 6.2, 9.1. Sorcha Landau remains as appellant’s lead counsel until new lead counsel is designated or a motion to withdraw or substitute counsel that complies with Rule 6.5 is filed and granted. See TEX. R. APP. P. 6.1(c), 6.5.

Judge's signature: /s/ Terry Jennings 

Date: April 12, 2016

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Bruce Edward Gorden v. State, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bruce-edward-gorden-v-state-texapp-2016.