Opinion
04-23-00134-CR
08-15-2023
Joe Frank RANGEL, Appellant v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee
From the 379th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 2021CR5036 Honorable Ron Rangel, Judge Presiding
ORDER
Beth Watkins, Justice.
Appellant's court-appointed attorney has filed a brief and motion to withdraw pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), in which he asserts there are no meritorious issues to raise on appeal. Counsel certifies he served copies of the brief and motion on appellant, informed appellant of his right to review the record and file his own brief, informed appellant of his right to seek discretionary review should the court of appeals declare the appeal frivolous, and provided appellant with a form for requesting the record and explained to appellant the procedure for obtaining the record. See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014); Nichols v. State, 954 S.W.2d 83 (Tex. App.-San Antonio 1997, no pet.); Bruns v. State, 924 S.W.2d 176, 177 n.1 (Tex. App.-San Antonio 1996, no pet.). As of the date of this order, appellant has not filed the record-request motion provided to him by his counsel.
If appellant desires to file a pro se brief, we ORDER that he do so by September 14, 2023. At this time, the State has filed a notice waiving its right to file a brief in this case unless appellant files a pro se brief. If appellant files a timely pro se brief, the State may file a responsive brief no later than thirty days after appellant's pro se brief is filed in this court.
We further ORDER the motion to withdraw filed by appellant's counsel held in abeyance pending further order of the court. See Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80-82 (1988) (holding that motion to withdraw should not be ruled on before appellate court independently reviews record to determine whether counsel's evaluation that appeal is frivolous is sound); Schulman v. State, 252 S.W.3d 403, 410-11 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (same).