Michael Lee Martin v. State

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedDecember 14, 2001
Docket07-01-00464-CR
StatusPublished

This text of Michael Lee Martin v. State (Michael Lee Martin 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
Michael Lee Martin v. State, (Tex. Ct. App. 2001).

Opinion

MARTIN V STATE OF TEXAS
NO. 07-01-0464-CR


IN THE COURT OF APPEALS



FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS



AT AMARILLO



PANEL D



DECEMBER 14, 2001

______________________________



MICHAEL LEE MARTIN
,



Appellant



v.



THE STATE OF TEXAS,



Appellee

_________________________________



FROM THE 181ST DISTRICT COURT OF RANDALL COUNTY;



NO. 12,875-B; HON. JOHN BOARD, PRESIDING

_______________________________

ABATEMENT AND REMAND



Before BOYD, C.J., QUINN and REAVIS, JJ.

Pending before this Court is the motion of Mr. Rick Keffler to withdraw as attorney of record on appeal. In his motion, he requests that he be relieved from any responsibility on this appeal because he has "not been paid any part of his fee to handle this appeal and furthermore has not been paid the anticipated costs of pursuing this appeal."

Accordingly, we now abate this appeal and remand the cause to the 181st District Court (trial court) of Randall County. Upon remand, the trial court shall immediately cause notice of a hearing to be given and, thereafter, conduct a hearing to determine the following:

1. whether appellant desires to prosecute his appeal; and

2. whether appellant is indigent and entitled to the appointment of counsel.

The trial court shall cause the hearing to be transcribed. Should it be determined appellant is indigent and entitled to appointed counsel, the trial court shall appoint counsel of its choice to prosecute this appeal. Furthermore, the trial court shall issue pertinent findings of fact and conclusions of law addressing 1) appellant's status as an indigent, if any, and 2) his entitlement to appointed counsel, if any. Should counsel be appointed by the court, the latter's findings of fact and conclusions of law shall also contain the name, state bar number, address, phone number, and telefax number of the newly appointed counsel. The trial court shall cause its findings of fact and conclusions of law to be included in a supplemental clerk's record. The trial court shall also cause the supplement clerk's record and transcription of the hearing to be filed with the Clerk of this Court by Monday, January 14, 2002. Should further time be needed by the trial court to perform these tasks, then same must be requested before January 14, 2002. The motion of Mr. Keffler to withdraw will be held in abeyance until this court receives the supplemental clerk's record and transcription.

It is so ordered.

Per Curiam

Do Not Publish.

the parties may desire the case, not simply the appeal, to be dismissed. If that is the parties' desire, this court may render judgment vacating the trial court's judgment and dismissing the case, on the filing of an agreement meeting the requirements of Rule 42.1(a)(2)(A). See Tex. R. App. P. 43.2(e). For these reasons, we overrule appellants' motion to dismiss without prejudice to refiling a motion in conformity with the Rules of Appellate Procedure.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Michael Lee Martin v. State, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/michael-lee-martin-v-state-texapp-2001.