Background
Gbolahan Odulate appealed his aggravated-assault conviction and concurrent three-year sentence. The appeal was originally filed in the Second Court of Appeals and transferred to the Seventh Court of Appeals through the Texas Supreme Court’s docket-equalization process.
Odulate’s appellate brief was initially due April 20, 2026. After granting counsel three extensions based on counsel’s caseload, the court warned that no further extensions would be granted and that failure to file by July 20 would result in abatement and remand. Counsel instead filed a fourth request on July 21, seeking another 30 days.
The Court’s Holding
In a per curiam order, the court denied the fourth extension request, abated the appeal, and remanded the case to the trial court under Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 38.8(b)(2) and (3). The order did not decide the merits of Odulate’s conviction or sentence.
The trial court must determine whether Odulate wishes to pursue the appeal, whether he is indigent, why no timely brief was filed, whether counsel abandoned the appeal or rendered ineffective assistance, whether new counsel should be appointed, and when a brief can be expected. The trial court must enter appropriate orders and submit its findings in a supplemental record by September 1, 2026. If counsel files a brief before the trial court acts and promptly provides written notice, no further trial-court action is required.
Key Takeaways
- The court denied appellate counsel’s fourth request for additional time after three prior extensions and an express warning.
- The appeal was abated and remanded for fact-finding about Odulate’s desire to appeal, indigency, counsel’s conduct, and possible ineffective assistance or abandonment.
- The order is procedural only and leaves the aggravated-assault conviction and sentence unreviewed on the merits.
Why It Matters
The order illustrates the safeguards Texas appellate courts use when counsel fails to file a criminal appellant’s brief. Rather than dismissing the appeal or deciding it without briefing, the court directed the trial court to investigate whether the appellant’s rights and access to counsel are being protected.
The remand may lead to appointment of new counsel if Odulate wishes to continue, is indigent, and has been denied effective assistance. The opinion is designated “Do not publish.”