Levi Leviness v. State

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedFebruary 7, 2018
Docket09-17-00437-CR
StatusPublished

This text of Levi Leviness v. State (Levi Leviness 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
Levi Leviness v. State, (Tex. Ct. App. 2018).

Opinion

In The

Court of Appeals Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont ____________________ NO. 09-17-00437-CR ____________________

LEVI LEVINESS, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee _______________________________________________________ ______________

On Appeal from the 163rd District Court Orange County, Texas Trial Cause No. B160503-R ________________________________________________________ _____________

ORDER

Counsel of record for Levi Leviness filed a motion to withdraw as counsel for

the appellant. Although he signed the notice of appeal as counsel of record for the

appellant, counsel informs the Court that he has not been retained as counsel for the

appeal. No payment arrangements have been made for the clerk’s record and no

information regarding the appellant’s ability to pay the costs of an appeal has been

provided to this Court.

1 It is, therefore, ORDERED that the appeal is abated and the case is remanded

to the trial court for the purpose of determining whether counsel should be allowed

to withdraw as counsel on appeal. The trial court shall determine whether appellant

has retained new counsel for the appeal. If the trial court determines that counsel of

record should be allowed to withdraw, and that appellant has not retained new

counsel for the appeal, the trial court shall determine whether the appellant is

indigent for purposes of obtaining a free record on appeal and shall determine

whether counsel should be appointed, in which case the trial court may appoint new

counsel for the appeal unless the trial court admonishes appellant as to the dangers

of self-representation on appeal and determines that appellant’s decision to

relinquish the benefits associated with counsel and to proceed pro se is knowingly

and intelligently made. All appellate timetables are suspended pending resolution of

this matter in the trial court. A supplemental clerk’s record containing any orders

and findings made by the trial court pursuant to this Order, together with a reporter’s

record of any hearings conducted by the trial court, shall be filed with the Court of

Appeals by March 9, 2018.

ORDER ENTERED February 7, 2018.

PER CURIAM

Before Kreger, Horton and Johnson, JJ. 2

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Levi Leviness v. State, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/levi-leviness-v-state-texapp-2018.