Opinion
No. 04-16-00671-CR
01-10-2018
Luis Alfredo SERVIN, Appellant v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee
From the 226th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas
Trial Court No. 2015CR5175
Honorable Sid L. Harle, Judge Presiding
ORDER
Appellant's court-appointed attorney filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 368 U.S. 738 (1967), asserting there are no meritorious issues to raise on appeal, and informed the appellant of the right to file his own pro se brief. The State waived its right to file an appellee's brief unless appellant files a pro se brief. Pursuant to Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014), appellant requested and received a copy of the appellate record to use in preparing his pro se brief. Thereafter, appellant filed a motion requesting access to State Exhibit No. 19, which is a DVD of his statement to law enforcement. We granted the request, and the clerk of the court created a copy of the DVD and forwarded it to the appellant in the care of the warden at the Texas Department of Criminal Justice (TDCJ) Hughes Unit, where appellant is incarcerated. Thereafter, a deputy clerk of the court received a telephone call from Ms. Brittany Hamilton, the Access to Courts Supervisor at the Hughes Unit, in which she acknowledged receiving the DVD, but stated that she was unable to play the DVD on the prison unit's equipment. The deputy clerk attempted to email the exhibit to Ms. Hamilton, but the attachment was too large.
Appellant subsequently filed a pro se "Motion to Hold Warden in Contempt of Court and to Show Cause for His Failure to Comply with Court's September 15, 2017 Order (and for Related Relief)." The Executive Director of the TDCJ filed a letter response on November 17, 2017, stating that the DVD was received at the Hughes Unit and an attempt was made to play the DVD on two different DVD players, but "[e]ach attempt gave an alert that the DVD was not properly formatted." Appellant filed a reply on December 5, 2017, objecting to the unsworn TDCJ letter.
Having considered the matter, we DENY appellant's pro se "Motion to Hold Warden in Contempt of Court and to Show Cause for His Failure to Comply with Court's September 15, 2017 Order (and for Related Relief)." In a final effort to provide appellant with personal access to the electronic version of his statement, we hereby INSTRUCT the clerk of this court to electronically copy State Exhibit No. 19 on to a flash drive and send it to appellant in the care of the warden at the Hughes Unit, along with a copy of this order. We ORDER the warden of the Hughes Unit to promptly provide appellant with supervised access to a computer or other equipment on which he may personally view State Exhibit No. 19 for purposes of preparing his pro se brief. See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). The warden of the Hughes Unit is further ORDERED to certify in writing to this court the date on which appellant personally viewed the electronic copy of State Exhibit No. 19, or explain why the electronic copy contained on the flash drive could not be opened or otherwise accessed on such date. The warden's certification is due in this court no later than thirty (30) days from the date of this order.
/s/_________
Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said court on this 10th day of January, 2018.
/s/_________
KEITH E. HOTTLE,
Clerk of Court