Reich-Bacot v. State

6 Citing cases

  1. Campos v. State

    Appellate case number: 01-13-00415-CR (Tex. App. Oct. 15, 2015)

    An indigent appellant is entitled to assistance of counsel in filing an appellate brief in a case on remand from the Court of Criminal Appeals. See Reich-Bacot v. State, 952 S.W.2d 542, 543 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997) (per curiam). When a case is remanded from the Court of Criminal Appeals to an intermediate appellate court, the appellant "stands in the same position as he did when the initial appeal was filed," and, thus, "the appellate rules apply just as though the appeal were on original submission."

  2. Reich-Bacot v. State

    976 S.W.2d 678 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998)   Cited 5 times

    This Court remanded the case to the Court of Appeals with instructions to allow appellant to file a brief on remand. Reich-Bacot v. State, 952 S.W.2d 542 (Tex.Cr.App. 1997). On second remand, appellant and the State briefed the issue of harm, and the Court of Appeals again held that appellant suffered no harm due to any charging error.

  3. Mayes v. State

    No. 07-13-00344-CR (Tex. App. Nov. 5, 2014)   Cited 2 times

    We do not say that such a circumstance could not exist. See Reich-Bacot v. State, 941 S.W.2d 382-83 (Tex. App.—Texarkana), vacated on other grounds, 952 S.W.2d 542 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997) (per curiam) (finding failure to submit a self-defense instruction did not produce some harm in the defendant when there was no evidence that the victim attacked the defendant). But in this case we have found the evidence viewed in the proper light required submission of the requested instruction.

  4. Abbott v. State

    278 S.W.3d 929 (Tex. App. 2009)   Cited 1 times

    The Court has consistently followed this requirement in subsequent cases. Reich-Bacot, 952 S.W.2d 542 (Tex.Crim.App. 1997); Theus v. State, 863 S.W.2d 489 (Tex.Crim.App. 1993). And for the clarification of the procedure, the San Antonio Court of Appeals discussed the procedure to be used in some detail, including quoting Local Rule 12 of this Court (now Local Rule 19) which specifically addresses the time to file briefs on remand.

  5. Sanchez v. State

    32 S.W.3d 687 (Tex. App. 2000)   Cited 11 times
    Stating that timely objected to defects of substance in an indictment "[u]nder any standard of review applied . . . would be harmful."

    See id. Thus, on remand the court of appeals is required to afford an appellant an opportunity to file a brief and to inquire as to the reason a brief was not filed on remand of the case. See id.; see also Tex.R.App.P. 38.8 (formerly Rule 74(l)(2)); Reich-Bacot, 952 S.W.2d 542, 543 (Tex.Crim.App. 1997). Failure of the court of appeals to do so may deprive an appellant of his right to rebrief and present argument on appeal in violation of the rule.

  6. Reich-Bacot v. State

    957 S.W.2d 892 (Tex. App. 1997)   Cited 2 times

    Thus, we now re-reconsider the issue that was before us eight months ago with the benefit of the rebriefing. Reich-Bacot v. State, 952 S.W.2d 542 (Tex.Crim.App. 1997). We have carefully reviewed the new briefs.