Gregory Harold Oakes v. State
This text of Gregory Harold Oakes v. State (Gregory Harold Oakes 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
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN
NO. 03-12-00330-CR
Gregory Harold Oakes, Appellant
v.
The State of Texas, Appellee
FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BELL COUNTY, 264TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT NO. 68602, HONORABLE MARTHA J. TRUDO, JUDGE PRESIDING
MEMORANDUM OPINION
PER CURIAM
Gregory Harold Oakes plead guilty to the offense of possession of five pounds or
less but more than four ounces of marijuana in a drug-free zone, and the trial court sentenced him
to five years’ imprisonment. See Tex. Health & Safety Code Ann. § 481.121 (West 2010). This
appeal followed. Appellant’s appointed counsel, Mr. W.W. Torrey, has filed a motion to withdraw
accompanied by a brief concluding that this appeal is frivolous and without merit. See Anders
v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). However, before counsel filed his Anders brief, he was elected
the District Attorney of Milam County, and his term commenced effective January 1, 2013. In
similar cases involving Mr. Torrey, this Court has abated the appeal and remanded the cause to the
trial court for consideration of whether counsel should be allowed to withdraw.1
1 See Parker v. State, No. 03-12-00540-CR, 2013 Tex. App. LEXIS 1587, at *1-2 (Tex. App.—Austin Feb. 20, 2013, no pet. h.) (per curiam) (not designated for publication); We will do the same here. If the district court determines that good cause exists to
relieve counsel of his duties and replace him with substitute counsel, the district court shall permit
counsel to withdraw and promptly appoint substitute counsel for the appeal of this cause. A copy
of the court’s order appointing substitute counsel and the court’s order granting counsel’s withdrawal
shall be forwarded to this Court no later than March 28, 2013.
The Anders brief that Mr. Torrey submitted has been marked “received” but will
not be filed until such time as substitute counsel files the required certificate of compliance with
the newly enacted Rule 9.4 regarding the length of briefs. See Tex. R. App. P. 9.4(i)(3). Within
thirty days of appointment, substitute counsel shall file an amended brief with the Rule 9.4
certification and such other amendments as new counsel deems appropriate.
Before Justices Puryear, Pemberton and Rose
Abated
Filed: March 13, 2013
Do Not Publish
Williamson v. State, No. 03-12-00672-CR, 2013 Tex. App. LEXIS 811, at *1-2 (Tex. App.—Austin Jan. 25, 2013, no pet. h.) (not designated for publication); Smalls v. State, No. 03-12-00241-CR, 2013 Tex. App. LEXIS 729, at *1-2 (Tex. App.—Austin Jan. 25, 2013, no pet. h.) (not designated for publication).
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Gregory Harold Oakes v. State, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gregory-harold-oakes-v-state-texapp-2013.