Sanket Shukla v. State
This text of Sanket Shukla v. State (Sanket Shukla 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
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
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Sanket Shukla v. State, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sanket-shukla-v-state-texapp-2018.