Background
Gbolahan Odulate appealed two aggravated-assault convictions and the concurrent three-year sentences imposed for them. The appeals originated in the Second Court of Appeals and were transferred to the Seventh Court of Appeals through the Texas Supreme Court’s docket-equalization process.
Odulate’s appellate brief was originally 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 did not meet that deadline and instead filed a fourth request for a 30-day extension on July 21.
The Court’s Holding
The court denied the fourth extension request, abated both appeals, and remanded the cases 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 convictions or sentences.
On remand, the trial court must determine whether Odulate wishes to continue the appeals, whether he is indigent, why no timely brief was filed, whether counsel abandoned the appeals or provided ineffective assistance, whether new counsel should be appointed, and when a brief can be expected. The trial court must enter any necessary orders and file its findings in a supplemental record by September 1, 2026. If counsel files the brief before the trial court acts and promptly gives written notice, no further trial-court action is required.
Key Takeaways
- A fourth request to extend the appellate briefing deadline was denied after counsel missed an expressly final deadline.
- The appeals were abated rather than dismissed, allowing the trial court to investigate whether Odulate still wants to appeal and whether counsel abandoned the cases or rendered ineffective assistance.
- The trial court may appoint new counsel if it finds that Odulate wishes to proceed, is indigent, and has been denied effective assistance.
Why It Matters
The order illustrates the safeguards Texas appellate procedure provides when a criminal appellant’s brief is not filed. Before an appeal is jeopardized by counsel’s inaction, the trial court must investigate the appellant’s wishes, financial status, representation, and ability to obtain meaningful appellate review.
The order also shows that repeated workload-based extension requests may eventually yield to a formal abatement proceeding designed to protect the appellant while moving the cases forward.