Dusty Lee Winkler v. the State of Texas

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedMay 30, 2023
Docket07-22-00285-CR
StatusPublished

This text of Dusty Lee Winkler v. the State of Texas (Dusty Lee Winkler 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.

Bluebook
Dusty Lee Winkler v. the State of Texas, (Tex. Ct. App. 2023).

Opinion

In The Court of Appeals Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo

No. 07-22-00285-CR

DUSTY LEE WINKLER, APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE

On Appeal from the 396th District Court Tarrant County, Texas1 Trial Court No. 1614611D, Honorable Robert P. Brotherton, Presiding

May 30, 2023 ORDER OF ABATEMENT AND REMAND Before PARKER and DOSS and YARBROUGH, JJ.

Appellant, Dusty Lee Winkler, appeals his conviction for continuous sexual abuse

of a child2 and sentence to forty years’ confinement. Appellant’s brief is due May 30,

2023. Now pending before this Court is Appellant’s motion to substitute his appointed

counsel, William R. Biggs, for newly retained counsel, Tonya Rolland. Because the trial

1Originally appealed to the Second Court of Appeals, this appeal was transferred to this Court by the Texas Supreme Court pursuant to its docket equalization efforts. See TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 73.001. 2 See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 21.02. court has responsibility for appointing counsel to represent indigent defendants in criminal

cases as well as the authority to relieve or replace appointed counsel, we abate the

appeal and remand the cause to the trial court to rule on Appellant’s motion to substitute

counsel. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. arts. 1.051(d), 26.04(j)(2); Enriquez v. State,

999 S.W.2d 906, 907–08 (Tex. App.—Waco 1999, order) (per curiam).

Upon remand, the trial court shall determine (1) whether Appellant still desires to

prosecute the appeal; and (2) whether to permit Appellant’s appointed attorney to

withdraw and Appellant’s retained attorney to substitute as counsel. The trial court shall

enter such orders necessary to address the aforementioned questions. The trial court’s

orders shall be included in a supplemental clerk’s record to be filed with this Court by

June 13, 2023.

It is so ordered.

Per Curiam

Do not publish.

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

Related

Enriquez v. State
999 S.W.2d 906 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1999)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Dusty Lee Winkler v. the State of Texas, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dusty-lee-winkler-v-the-state-of-texas-texapp-2023.