David Malcom Strickland v. State
This text of David Malcom Strickland v. State (David Malcom Strickland 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
NUMBERS 13-16-00701-CR
COURT OF APPEALS
THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG
DAVID STRICKLAND, Appellant,
v.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee. ____________________________________________________________
On appeal from the 36th District Court of San Patricio County, Texas.
ORDER Before Chief Justice Contreras and Justices Benavides and Longoria Order Per Curiam On November 15, 2018, this Court issued an Order Abating Appeal to determine
if appellant’s motion should be filed under seal. The trial court conducted a hearing on
November 26, 2018, in which it heard argument regarding appellant’s “Motion to Reverse
and Render Based upon Insufficient Evidence and to Vacate the Conviction and Seek
Immediate Release,” the State’s response, and the appellant’s reply. The trial court recommended that the motion should not be filed under seal in this Court. The parties
agreed that the exhibits attached to the motion should be filed under seal with this Court.
Following the recommendation of the trial court, we GRANT in part and DENY in
part appellant’s “Motion to Seal the Motion to Reverse and Render Based upon
Insufficient Evidence and to Vacate the Conviction and Seek Immediate Release” by
ordering that the motion, response and reply will not be filed under seal with this Court.
The exhibits attached to the motion, response or reply will be filed under seal with this
Court.
Appellant’s “Motion to Reverse and Render Based upon Insufficient Evidence and
to Vacate the Conviction and Seek Immediate Release” will continue to be carried with
the case upon final resolution by the Court.
We hereby REINSTATE this cause of action. We further direct the Clerk of this
Court to post appellant’s “Motion to Reverse and Render Based upon Insufficient
Evidence and to Vacate the Conviction and Seek Immediate Release,” without exhibits,
“Appellee’s Reply to Appellant’s Motion to Reverse and Render Based upon Insufficient
Evidence and to Vacate the Conviction and Seek Immediate Release,” and “Appellant’s
Response to Appellee’s Reply to Appellant’s Motion to Reverse and Render Based upon
Insufficient Evidence and to Vacate the Conviction and Seek Immediate Release and
Request for Filing Under Seal” to the Court’s website within twenty (20) days of this order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
PER CURIAM
Do not publish. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).
Delivered and filed the 7th day of January, 2019. 2
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
David Malcom Strickland v. State, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/david-malcom-strickland-v-state-texapp-2019.