Kenneth D. Reading v. State

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN






NO. 03-02-00493-CR

NO. 03-02-00494-CR


Kenneth D. Reading, Appellant

v.



The State of Texas, Appellee








FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY, 147TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NOS. 952337 & 952342, HONORABLE WILFORD FLOWERS, JUDGE PRESIDING


O R D E R

PER CURIAM

Kenneth D. Reading appeals from orders revoking community supervision and imposing sentence. Appellant's counsel of record on appeal, Mr. Stephen Orr, has filed motions to withdraw. (1)

Counsel states that he did not agree and has not been paid to represent appellant in these appeals. Counsel did, however, file motions of new trial and notices of appeal on appellant's behalf. In addition, the Court has been informed by the district clerk that counsel was appointed to represent appellant. (2) Assuming that appellant is indigent, this Court may not grant the motions to withdraw because the effect would be to leave appellant without counsel.

The motions to withdraw are dismissed and counsel is instructed to refile the motions in the district court. That court may grant or deny the motions at its discretion. If counsel is permitted to withdraw, the court shall immediately appoint substitute counsel. The court and counsel are advised that appellant's brief is currently due February 20, 2003.

It is ordered January 22, 2003.



Before Justices Kidd, Yeakel and Patterson

Do Not Publish

1. Contrary to statements made in the motions, there is no indication in the record that appellant waived his right to appeal the revocation orders.

2. The record contains an order appointing a different attorney to represent appellant at the revocation hearing. The record does not contain an order permitting that attorney to withdraw or appointing Orr for the appeals.