Ernest C. Adimore-Nweke v. State

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedJanuary 16, 2020
Docket01-20-00012-CR
StatusPublished

This text of Ernest C. Adimore-Nweke v. State (Ernest C. Adimore-Nweke 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
Ernest C. Adimore-Nweke v. State, (Tex. Ct. App. 2020).

Opinion

COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER

Appellate case name: Ernest C. Adimore-Nweke v. The State of Texas

Appellate case number: 01-20-00012-CR

Trial court case number: 2233595

Trial court: County Criminal Court at Law No. 15 of Harris County

and

Appellate case name: Ernest C. Adimore-Nweke v. The State of Texas

Appellate case number: 1-20-00014-CR

Trial court case number: 2233594

Trial court: County Criminal Court at Law No. 15 of Harris County

Appellant, Ernest C. Adimore-Nweke, filed a motion asking this Court to declare him indigent in these two appeals. The Court abates these appeals in order for the trial court to hold a hearing to hear evidence and issue findings of fact to determine whether appellant is indigent. See TEX. R. APP. P. 20.1(b)(3). The court coordinator of the trial court shall set a date for said hearing within 30 days of the date of this Order and notify the parties, including appellant. If appellant is now incarcerated, he may appear by closed video teleconference.1 The trial court shall have a court reporter, or court recorder, record the hearing and file the reporter’s record with this Court no later than 30 days from the date of the indigency hearing. The trial court clerk shall file a clerk’s record containing the trial court’s findings no later than 30 days from the date of the indigency hearing.

1 Any such teleconference must use a closed-circuit video teleconferencing system that provides for a simultaneous compressed full motion video and interactive communication of image and sound between the trial court, appellant, and any attorneys representing the State or appellant. On request, appellant and his counsel shall be able to communicate privately without being recorded or heard by the trial court or the attorney representing the State. The appeals are abated, treated as closed cases, and removed from this Court’s active docket. The appeals will be reinstated on this Court’s active docket when the clerk’s record and reporter’s record of the hearing are filed with this Court. It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: ___________/s/ Julie Countiss__________ Acting individually

Date: January 16, 2020

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Ernest C. Adimore-Nweke v. State, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ernest-c-adimore-nweke-v-state-texapp-2020.