Maybe I am being picky - but does anyone see problems with trial courts granting motions to withdraw as attorney of record after the notice of appeal has been filed and outside the 30 days of plenary jurisdiction? I have also found that sometimes trial attorneys do not think it is their duty to withdraw in timely fashion so another attorney can be appointed on appeal. Theny trial courts untimely appoint another attorney for appeal. Appellate courts dismiss - but assume that when habeas filed def will get out of time appeal.

Does anyone else have problems asserting to trial court it is the trial attorney's duty to file NOA and withdraw, or at least withdraw before NOA is untimely?

[This message was edited by pkdyer on 04-21-08 at .]

As you know, there is a window -- after NOA is filed and before the record is filed -- where a trial court retains jurisdiction. Thus, a trial court can consider a motion. If the system is being manipulated by the defense, though, I suppose you could object in the trial court and raise a cross-point on appeal about improper gamesmanship. We get a few habeas each year where things on appeal were done untimely, but I have never seen it adopted by the defense as a practice.

I suppose you could also bring the matter to the attention of the CCA in your response to habeas -- a warning shot to the offender.


JAS