IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
AT AMARILLO
PANEL A
SEPTEMBER 24, 2004
______________________________
JACOB MORGAN MCCALLISTER, APPELLANT
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE
_________________________________
FROM THE COUNTY COURT OF HALE COUNTY;
NO. 2003C-569; HONORABLE BILL HOLLARS, JUDGE
_______________________________
Before JOHNSON, C.J., and REAVIS and CAMPBELL, JJ.
MEMORANDUM OPINIONJacob Morgan McCallister brought this appeal from his conviction for possession of marijuana. Based on a finding by the trial court that appellant no longer wishes to prosecute the appeal, we will dismiss.
The factual and procedural history of the case is set out in our August 19, 2004 order in this appeal and need not be repeated here. See McCallister v. State, No. 07-04-0242-CR (Tex.App.-Amarillo August 19, 2004). That order abated the appeal for a hearing in accordance with Rule of Appellate Procedure 38.8(b) to determine whether appellant desires to prosecute the appeal and whether he is indigent and entitled to appointed counsel. McCallister, at 3. In conformity with our August 19, 2004 order the trial court gave notice of a hearing and conducted a hearing September 7, 2004. A supplemental record from that hearing has been filed in this court. It shows the hearing notice was sent by certified mail, delivered August 28, 2004. Appellant did not appear at the hearing. Based on his failure to appear the trial court found appellant does not wish to proceed with this appeal.
In accordance with the factual finding by the trial court, without addressing the merits, we dismiss this appeal. Tex. R. App. P. 38.8(b)(4), 43.2(f).
Per Curiam
Do not publish.
.
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.