Javier Alonzo v. State
This text of Javier Alonzo v. State (Javier Alonzo 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
NUMBER 13-19-00337-CR
COURT OF APPEALS
THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG ____________________________________________________________
JAVIER ALONZO, Appellant,
v.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee. ____________________________________________________________
On appeal from the 398th District Court of Hidalgo County, Texas. ____________________________________________________________
ORDER OF ABATEMENT Before Justices Benavides, Hinojosa, and Tijerina Order Per Curiam
This cause is before the Court on the honorable O. Rene Flores’ motion to
withdraw.
Adequate reason for the discharge of counsel and appointment of new counsel, if
any, rests within the sound discretion of the trial court. Carroll v. State, 176 S.W.3d 249, 255 (Tex. App.BHouston [1st Dist.] 2004, pet. ref'd). In those circumstances where the
appointment of substitute counsel may be necessary, an appellate court, when faced with
a motion to withdraw, should abate the proceeding to the trial court for determination of
this issue. Accordingly, we ABATE the appeal and REMAND the cause to the trial court
for further proceedings consistent with this order.
Upon remand, the trial court shall determine whether appellant’s attorney should
remain as appellant's counsel; and, if not, whether appellant is entitled to appointed
counsel. If the trial court determines that there is no reason to discharge appellant’s
current appointed attorney and appoint substitute counsel, the court shall enter an order
to that effect. If the trial court determines that new counsel should be appointed, the name,
address, telephone number, and state bar number of newly appointed counsel shall be
included in the order appointing counsel. The trial court shall further cause its order to be
included in a supplemental clerk's record to be filed with the Clerk of this Court on or
before the expiration of thirty days from the date of this order.
Appellant’s brief shall be due thirty days after the receipt of the supplemental
record.
It is so ordered.
PER CURIAM
Do not publish. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).
Delivered and filed the 20th day of October, 2020.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Javier Alonzo v. State, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/javier-alonzo-v-state-texapp-2020.