Narrative Opinion Summary
In this appellate case, the appellant, Bernhardt Tiede, II, originally represented by Mike DeGeurin, sought the substitution of counsel with Jonathan Landers, who filed a motion to that effect. Despite not fully adhering to the procedural mandates of the Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 6.5(d), the court acknowledged the rule’s purpose to ensure uninterrupted legal representation and approved Landers' substitution for DeGeurin. The court was satisfied that the appellant’s representation was adequately protected, thereby granting the motion. Additionally, Landers requested an extension to file the appellate brief, initially due on December 28, 2016. The court granted this request, extending the deadline to February 13, 2017, and stipulated that any further extensions would require extraordinary circumstances. This order reflects the court’s commitment to ensuring the appellant's right to effective legal representation and adequate preparation time for the appeal process.
Legal Issues Addressed
Extension of Time for Filing Appellate Briefsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court has granted a 45-day extension for the filing of the appellate brief, setting a new deadline, with further extensions only available under extraordinary circumstances.
Reasoning: Landers requested a 45-day extension for filing Tiede’s appellate brief, currently due on December 28, 2016. The court grants this extension, making the new deadline February 13, 2017, with further extensions only available under extraordinary circumstances.
Substitution of Counsel under Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 6.5(d)subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court has granted a motion to substitute counsel, recognizing that the procedural requirements, although not fully met, are intended to ensure continued representation for the party.
Reasoning: Although the procedural requirements of Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 6.5(d) for withdrawing and substituting counsel were not fully met, the court recognizes that the intent of the rule is to prevent a party from being left without representation.