Opinion
08-24-00012-CR
08-22-2024
NICHOLAS NEGRETE PETERS, Appellant, v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, State.
Appeal from the 243rd District Court of El Paso County, Texas (TC# 2018D05365)
Before Alley, C.J., Palafox and Soto, J.J.
ORDER
Pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 10.4 (a) the motion ruled on through this Order may have been decided by a single Justice sitting on the panel.
Before the Court is Appellant's second motion for extension of time to file his appellate brief. The motion seeks a five-month extension. This Court, and likely no other court of appeals in this State, would grant a five-month extension of time to file a brief.
The motion is based on Counsel's caseload-a recently filed appellate brief, an early August trial, and four upcoming trials-as the cause for this lengthy extension request. The Court is cognizant of the fact that experienced and competent attorneys are in high demand and often have a stream of clients anxious to retain their services. Nonetheless, attorneys have an obligation to their existing clients and the courts in which they practice. This obligation includes exercising caution when accepting more work than they or their staff can timely handle. The Rules of Professional Conduct require diligent representation, and that a "lawyer's workload should be controlled so that each matter can be handled with diligence and competence." Tex. Disciplinary R. Prof'L Conduct 1.01 cmt. 6. The Court is not suggesting that counsel breached that standard- because even a well-managed docket can suffer from unfortuitous scheduling issues. But a proper response to that circumstance is not to seek an extension for the length of time as sought in this motion.
The Court on its own motion GRANTS a 45-day extension. Appellant's brief is now due on or before October 7, 2024. Further extensions for time to file Appellant's brief are disfavored. Counsel is further advised to review this Court's policy on briefing 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 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 does 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.