Michael Christopher Hurst v. the State of Texas
This text of Michael Christopher Hurst v. the State of Texas (Michael Christopher Hurst 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.
Opinion
In The
Court of Appeals
Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont
__________________
NO. 09-22-00145-CR NO. 09-22-00146-CR __________________
MICHAEL CHRISTOPHER HURST, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee __________________________________________________________________
On Appeal from the 435th District Court Montgomery County, Texas Trial Cause Nos. 21-07-09227-CR and 21-07-09226-CR __________________________________________________________________
ORDER
The trial court appointed William Harrison to represent appellant Michael
Christopher Hurst on appeal. The reporter’s records were filed on June 27, 2022, and
the clerk’s records were filed on July 5, 2022. On November 7, 2022, the Court
granted a fourth extension of time to file the brief, noting that the extension was a
“final extension,” and we warned appellant’s court-appointed attorney, William
Harrison, that unless we received the brief by November 21, 2022, we would order
the trial court to conduct a hearing to determine why no brief has been filed.
1 Although the brief of the appellant was due to be filed by November 21, 2022, the
brief has not been filed.
We abate the appeals and remand the cases to the trial court to conduct a
hearing at which a representative of the State, counsel for the appellant, and the
appellant shall be present. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.8(b)(3). We direct the trial court
to determine whether or not appellant desires to pursue his appeal. If appellant
desires to pursue his appeal, we direct the trial court to determine why the brief of
the appellant has not been filed and whether good cause exists for appointed counsel,
William Harrison, to be relieved of his duties as appellate counsel and replaced by
substitute counsel. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 26.04(j)(2). If the trial court
determines that good cause exists to relieve appointed counsel of his duties, we direct
the trial court to appoint substitute counsel.
The record of the hearing, including any orders and findings of the trial court
judge, shall be sent to the appellate court for filing. The transcription of the court
reporter’s notes from the hearing and the recommendations of the trial court judge
are to be filed on or before January 3, 2023.
ORDER ENTERED December 2, 2022.
PER CURIAM
Before Kreger, Horton and Johnson, JJ.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Michael Christopher Hurst v. the State of Texas, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/michael-christopher-hurst-v-the-state-of-texas-texapp-2022.