Christmann v. State

Full title: BERNARD WALTER CHRISTMANN, Appellant, v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, State.

Court: Court of Appeals of Texas, Eighth District, El Paso

Date published: Apr 17, 2024

No. 08-23-00338-CR (Tex. App. Apr. 17, 2024)

Opinion

08-23-00338-CR

04-17-2024

BERNARD WALTER CHRISTMANN, Appellant, v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, State.

PER CURIAM

Appeal from the 243^rd District Court of El Paso County, Texas (TC# 20220D00631)

Before Alley, C.J., Palafox and Soto, JJ.

ORDER

PER CURIAM ¹

1 Pursuant to Tex.R.App.P. 10.4 (a) the motion ruled on through this Order may have been decided by a single Justice sitting on the panel.

The Court grants State's first motion for extension of time within which to file State's brief. The brief is now due May 17, 2024. Counsel is advised to review this Court's policy of extensions which is attached to this order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Eighth Court of Appeals Policy on Extensions for Briefs

The Court urges counsel and parties to carefully review this policy on extensions of time for briefs, as it departs from what the Court has done in the past.

One of the Court's overriding goals is to see that cases are fully briefed and ready for decision on a timely basis. When parties seek excessive extensions of time to file briefs, the Court's orderly system of considering cases is disrupted, and the parties themselves are denied an efficient disposition of their case. The Court understands that practitioners are under pressure from other court settings and professional obligations, but this Court's work should be a priority.

For most appeals (those that are not accelerated or under mandatory statutory deadlines), the Clerk's Office will administer agreed first motions to extend the time to file a brief. If the motion complies with the TRAPS and the motion's fee is paid, the Clerk's Office is authorized to grant a reasonable extension (not to exceed 45 days for opening briefs). A second agreed motion to extend will be elevated to a single Justice who may or may not grant the request, depending on the amount of time requested, and the reasons advanced. Even if the motion is granted, the Court may shorten the time proposed for the extension. A second extension will almost always contain the warning that "Absent extraordinary circumstances, additional extensions will be disfavored." Extraordinary circumstances do not include recital of the same reasons advanced for the first extension.

Any further extensions will be decided by the Court and if granted, will almost always contain the warning that FURTHER REQUESTS FOR EXTENSIONS OF TIME FOR THIS FILING WILL NOT BE CONSIDERED. Attorneys who ignore this warning do so at their client's peril. In civil cases, the Court may dismiss an appeal for failure to prosecute when an Appellant's brief is not timely filed. The Court may consider an appeal only on the Appellant's brief when an Appellee fails to file a brief. The Court never has to wait until a tardy Reply brief is filed to decide the issues. The same holds true for the State's brief in criminal cases and for criminal defendants with retained counsel. When appointed counsel in criminal cases fails to timely file a brief, this Court will remand the case for a hearing before the trial court to make specific findings on whether appointed counsel is properly representing the accused, and whether new counsel should be appointed.

Accelerated appeals and contested extension motions will be dealt with on a case-by-case basis.