Court Opinion

ID: 9365799
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-25 07:11:01.121429+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:15:47.695165
License: Public Domain

Order entered January 20, 2023

                                        In The
                                  Court of Appeals
                           Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

                                  No. 05-21-01033-CR

                    ADDISON DOUGLAS MAYS, Appellant

                                          V.

                           THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

                On Appeal from the 366th Judicial District Court
                             Collin County, Texas
                    Trial Court Cause No. 366-84413-2019

                                       ORDER

      Before the Court is appellant’s January 3, 2023 pro se motion to appoint

counsel. In his motion, appellant asserts his new counsel has not communicated

with him despite his efforts to communicate with her. He also asserts that his

former counsel, who is employed by the Collin County District Attorney’s office,

is representing the State in his case. We DENY appellant’s motion, but provide

other relief as follows.
      Due to a clerical error that has been corrected, former counsel was

inadvertently included on the Court’s service list and has received copies of orders

in this case. Former counsel is not representing the State in this matter. Our records

show the State is represented by Criminal District Attorney Greg Willis, Assistant

Criminal District Attorney Lisa Braxton, and Assistant Criminal District Attorney

Amy Sue Melo Murphy.

      Our records show that on August 30, 2022, the Court entered an order

permitting former counsel to withdraw from representation because he was taking

a position with the Collin County District Attorney’s office. The Court abated the

case to the trial court for appointment of new counsel. The Court’s abatement order

further provided that within thirty days of appointment, new counsel should review

the record and notify the Court in writing whether counsel intended to: (1) file a

new brief replacing the January 28, 2022 brief filed by former counsel; (2) file a

supplemental brief; or (3) adopt the January 28, 2022 brief as filed.

      The trial court appointed Stephanie Duecker Hudson as appellant’s new

counsel. By order entered October 26, 2022, the Court ordered Ms. Hudson to

provide, by November 18, 2022, the written notification electing whether to file a

new brief or else supplement or adopt the existing brief. Ms. Hudson did not file a

written notification. On December 20, 2022, the Court entered an order stating that

the Court would presume Ms. Hudson was adopting the existing brief and would

                                         –2–
submit the appeal on that brief. Appellant now contends that counsel has not

communicated with him since her appointment.

      Under the circumstances, the Court cannot determine whether appellant is

receiving the effective assistance of counsel. Accordingly, we ORDER the trial

court to conduct a hearing to determine the status of this appeal. The trial court

shall make appropriate findings and recommendations and determine why

appointed counsel has not notified the Court regarding whether she intends to file a

new appellant’s brief, supplement the January 28, 2022 brief former counsel filed

for appellant, or adopt the January 28, 2022 brief as filed; and to determine

whether appointed counsel is representing appellant or whether she has abandoned

the appeal. If the trial court cannot obtain appellant’s presence at the hearing, the

trial court shall conduct the hearing in appellant’s absence. See Meza v. State, 742

S.W.2d 708 (Tex. App.–Corpus Christi 1987, no pet.) (per curiam). If appellant is

indigent, the trial court is ORDERED to take such measures as may be necessary

to assure effective representation, which may include appointment of new counsel.

      We ORDER the trial court to transmit a record of the proceedings, which

shall include written findings and recommendations, to this Court within THIRTY

DAYS of the date of this order.

                                        –3–
      This appeal is ABATED to allow the trial court to comply with the above

order. The appeal shall be reinstated when the findings are received or at such

other time as the Court deems appropriate.

      We DIRECT the Clerk of the Court to send copies of this order to: the

Honorable Tom Nowak, Presiding Judge, 366th Judicial District Court; Stephanie

Duecker Hudson, counsel for appellant; Amy Sue Melo Murphy, assistant criminal

district attorney; and appellant Addison Douglas Mays, TDCJ No. 02373093, Beto

Unit, 1391 FM 3328, Tennessee Colony, Texas 75880.

                                             /s/   DENNISE GARCIA
                                                   JUSTICE

                                       –4–