Crooks v. State

Full title: Craig Anthony Crooks v. The State of Texas

Court: COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

Date published: May 8, 2013

Cause number: 01-12-00996-CR (Tex. App. May. 8, 2013)

Opinion

Cause number: 01-12-00996-CR

05-08-2013

Craig Anthony Crooks v. The State of Texas

Jim Sharp

NOTICE OF ORDER ON MOTION

Date motions filed*: March 13, 2013 Type of motion: Motion to substitute attorney of record Party filing motion: Appellant Document to be filed: _________________ Is appeal accelerated? No If motion to extend time:

Original due date: _________________

Number of previous extensions granted: Current Due date:

Date Requested: _________________ Ordered that motion is:

[ ] Granted

if document is to be filed, document due:
[ ] Absent extraordinary circumstances, the Court will not grant additional motior to extend time

[√] Denied
[ ] Dismissed (e.g., want of jurisdiction, moot)
[ ] Other: _________________
In the motion to substitute, counsel fails to certify that appellant, Craig Anthony Crooks, was served with the motion either in person or by both certified and first-class mail. See TEX. R. APP. P. 6.5(b), (d), 9.5(d). The motion as presented is denied.

Judge's signature: Jim Sharp

X Acting individually [ ] Acting for the Court
November 7, 2008 Revision