Pippillion v. State

Court of Appeals of Texas

Pippillion v. State

186 S.W.3d 694, 2006 Tex. App. LEXIS 2727, 2006 WL 870924

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas

DecidedApril 5, 2006

Docket10-04-00264-CR

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 186 S.W.3d 694 (Pippillion 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

Pippillion v. State, 186 S.W.3d 694, 2006 Tex. App. LEXIS 2727, 2006 WL 870924 (Tex. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

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.

Justice VANCE, concurring with a note. *

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