Waymon Leon Webster v. State ( 2017 )

IN THE
TENTH COURT OF APPEALS
No. 10-16-00248-CR
No. 10-16-00249-CR
No. 10-16-00250-CR
WAYMON LEON WEBSTER,
Appellant
v.
THE STATE OF TEXAS,
Appellee
From the 85th District Court
Brazos County, Texas
Trial Court Nos. 15-02647-CRM-85,
15-03061-CRF-85, and 15-03062-CRF-85
ABATEMENT ORDER
Waymon Leon Webster was convicted of three offenses: failure to identify, theft,
and tampering with evidence. He appealed each, and each was set up as a separate
appeal: 10-16-00248-CR (failure to ID); 10-16-00249-CR (theft); and 10-16-00250-CR
(tampering).
The briefs in these appeals were due on February 17, 2017. The Clerk of this Court
notified Webster’s counsel by separate letters dated February 23, 2017 that the briefs were
past due and that a brief or response was due within 14 days from the date of the letter.
On March 10, 2017, appointed counsel for Webster filed a motion for extension of
time and a motion to withdraw as counsel in appellate case number 10-16-00248-CR, only
one of the three appeals in which he represents Webster. By the motion, appointed
counsel contends Webster has filed a grievance against his counsel, and the grievance has
compromised the attorney-client relationship.1
This Court does not have the authority to grant appointed counsel’s motion to
withdraw except in Anders2 appeals. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art 26.04(j)(2) (West
2009); Ibarra v. State, 226 S.W.3d 481, 483 (Tex. App.—Waco 2006, no pet.) (Anders is an
exception to rule announced in Enriquez); Enriquez v. State, 999 S.W.2d 906, 907 (Tex.
App.—Waco 1999, order) (construing predecessor to current statute; see Acts 1987, 70th
Leg., ch 979 § 2, amended by Acts 2001, 77th Leg., ch 906, § 6) (only trial court has
authority to grant appointed counsel’s motion to withdraw). Although counsel filed a
motion to withdraw in only one appeal, the briefs are overdue in all three appeals.
Accordingly, all three of these appeals are abated to the trial court to hold a hearing
within 14 days from the date of this order to consider whether Webster is still indigent
and if so, whether to discharge Webster’s currently appointed counsel and appoint new
1
We do understand why this would not also be an issue in the other two appeals.
2
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967).
Webster v. State Page 2
appellate counsel for Webster for each of the appeals. Supplemental Clerk’s and
Reporter’s Records containing the trial court’s written or oral findings and rulings are
ordered to be filed within 28 days from the date of this order.
Further, counsel’s motion for extension of time to file his brief in appellate case
number 10-16-00248-CR is dismissed as moot. Regardless of whether a new attorney is
appointed for Webster, a new date for the filing of the briefs will be determined when
these appeals are reinstated.
PER CURIAM
Before Chief Justice Gray,
Justice Davis, and
Justice Scoggins
Appeal abated
Motion to extend time dismissed as moot
Order issued and filed March 22, 2017
Webster v. State Page 3