Court of Civil Appeals of Texas, 2009

Rodolfo R. Sosa v. State

Rodolfo R. Sosa v. State
Court of Civil Appeals of Texas · Decided June 30, 2009

Rodolfo R. Sosa v. State

Opinion

NOS. 07-09-0026-CR, 07-09-0027-CR, 07-09-0028-CR


IN THE COURT OF APPEALS


FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS


AT AMARILLO


PANEL B


JUNE 30, 2009

                                       ______________________________


RODOLFO SOSA, APPELLANT


V.


THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE

_________________________________


FROM THE 427TH DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY;


NO. D-1-DC-06-100022, D-1-DC-06-300403, D-1-DC-06-300443;


HONORABLE JON WISSER, JUDGE

_______________________________



Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and HANCOCK, JJ.

ORDER ON MOTION TO WITHDRAW

          Pending before the Court is a motion filed by attorney Alexander Reyer seeking to withdraw as appellate counsel.

          A review of the clerk’s record reveals that, after appellant was convicted and sentence was imposed, the trial court determined that appellant was indigent and in need of legal services. The clerk’s record shows that the trial court appointed Reyer to represent appellant on appeal on January 14, 2009.

          On June 10, 2009, this Court received a motion from Reyer titled Motion for Withdrawal of Counsel requesting this Court to allow Reyer’s withdrawal from this appeal. However, the motion now pending before this Court does not identify any current deadlines; does not include the party’s name, last known address, or telephone number; does not state that a copy of the motion was delivered to the party; and does not state that the party was notified of the right to object to the motion. See Tex. R. App. P. 6.5(a). Because the motion fails to comply with the requisites of the rule, we deny the motion.

          We do, however, note that the trial court retains authority over the appointment of counsel for appellant. See Enriquez v. State, 999 S.W.2d 906, 908 (Tex.App.–Waco 2000, pet. ref’d). Any request for clarification of appointed counsel’s continuing role in this appeal is properly directed initially to the trial court. Appellant is directed to supplement the appellate record with the appropriate documentation of any further action taken by the trial court with respect to appointed counsel.

          The Motion for Withdrawal of Counsel is denied.

 

                                                                           Per Curiam



Do not publish.


Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.