Pippillion v. State
Opinion
ORDER
Appellant’s court appointed attorney filed an Anders brief and a motion to withdraw as counsel. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967).
As an exception to this Court’s order in Enriquez v. State, 999 S.W.2d 906, 907-08 (Tex.App.-Waco 1999, order), this Court may grant a motion to withdraw when appointed counsel files an Anders brief. See Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex.Crim.App.1991); see also Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824 (Tex.Crim.App.2005). Therefore, appointed counsel’s motion to withdraw is granted.
New counsel has appeared and has filed a brief on Appellant’s behalf. The case will be submitted in due course for consideration by the Court.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
186 S.W.3d 694 (Pippillion v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.