Sanket Shukla v. State

Court of Appeals of Texas·Decided May 10, 2018·No. 01-18-00147-CR·Published

Opinion

COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER ON MOTION

Cause number: 01-18-00147-CR Style: Sanket Shukla v. The State of Texas Date motion filed*: May 7, 2018 Type of motion: Notice of Appearance and Designation of New Lead Counsel Party filing motion: Appellant’s Newly-Retained Counsel, Peyton Z. Peebles II and Appointed Counsel, Hattie Sewell Shannon Document to be filed: N/A

Is appeal accelerated? No.

Ordered that motion is:  Granted  Denied  Dismissed (e.g., want of jurisdiction, moot)  Other: _____________________________________ Appellant’s notice of appearance and designation of new lead counsel, construed as a motion to substitute counsel, is granted because it complies with Rule 6.5 and was signed by both appointed and newly-retained counsel. See TEX. R. APP. P. 6.5(b), (d). The Clerk of this Court is directed to remove Hattie Sewell Shannon as counsel for appellant and to substitute Peyton Z. Peebles II as appellant’s lead counsel of record, if not done so already. See id. 6.1(c), 6.2.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Laura C. Higley  Acting for the Court

Date: May 10, 2018

November 7, 2008 Revision

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

Sanket Shukla v. State, (Tex. Ct. App. 2018).

Sanket Shukla v. State (Sanket Shukla v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.