Roelio Madrigal v. State
This text of Roelio Madrigal v. State (Roelio Madrigal 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.
Opinion
In The Court of Appeals Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo
No. 07-14-00350-CR
ROELIO MADRIGAL, APPELLANT
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE
On Appeal from the 108th District Court Potter County, Texas Trial Court No. 67,505-E, Honorable Douglas Woodburn, Presiding
January 20, 2015
ON ABATEMENT AND REMAND Before CAMPBELL and HANCOCK and PIRTLE, JJ.
Appellant Roelio Madrigal appeals his conviction for possession of a controlled
substance and sentence of ten years’ confinement in prison. His court-appointed
appellate counsel, Steven M. Denny, has filed a motion to withdraw from the
representation. His motion states he has learned that appellant is a witness for the trial
of another of Mr. Denny’s clients, creating an “irreconcilable” conflict of interest.
We grant Mr. Denny’s motion to withdraw. We abate the appeal and remand the
cause to the trial court. On or before February 6, 2015, the trial court shall appoint new counsel to represent appellant in this appeal. The written order appointing new counsel
shall include the name, postal service and e-mail addresses, telephone number, and
state bar number of the newly-appointed counsel. A copy of the order appointing new
counsel shall be included in a supplemental clerk’s record and filed with the clerk of this
court on or before February 13, 2015.
It is so ordered.
Per Curiam
Do not publish.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Roelio Madrigal v. State, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/roelio-madrigal-v-state-texapp-2015.