From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Sanchez-Beiza v. State

Court of Appeals of Texas, Third District, Austin
Jul 3, 2024
No. 03-22-00077-CR (Tex. App. Jul. 3, 2024)

Opinion

03-22-00077-CR

07-03-2024

Everardo Sanchez-Beiza, Appellant v. The State of Texas, Appellee


Do Not Publish

FROM THE 274TH DISTRICT COURT OF HAYS COUNTY NO. CR-19-3980-C, THE HONORABLE GARY L. STEEL, JUDGE PRESIDING

Before Chief Justice Byrne, Justices Smith and Theofanis

ORDER AND MEMORANDUM OPINION

PER CURIAM

Appellant's court-appointed counsel has filed a motion to withdraw supported by a brief concluding that the instant appeal is frivolous and without merit. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967). Counsel has certified to the Court that he provided copies of the motion and brief to appellant, advised him of his right to examine the appellate record and file a pro se response, and supplied him with a form motion for pro se access to the appellate record. See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319-20 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). On December 13, 2023, appellant, through counsel, timely filed the motion, which we granted. The trial court has advised us that appellant was sent a copy of the record.

On June 3, 2024, appellant filed a motion for extension of time to file a pro se response to counsel's Anders brief. The motion, which purports to have been written by appellant's cellmate, states that appellant "speaks limited [E]nglish and reads and writes none,"that he had received the record and a letter from counsel but "did not know what they were" because "they were in [E]nglish," that appellant "contest[s] his appointed attorney[']s Ander[]s Brief," that he "asks the court to provide the appella[te] record in [S]panish," and that he "request[s] that correspond[e]nce[] be in Spanish so that he can read and understand" it. Appellant signed the motion beneath a jurat swearing under penalty of perjury that the motion's contents are true.

A pro se response is not a merits brief but "merely an informal opportunity for the indigent defendant to present what he believes are claims or issues or areas of procedural or substantive concern that arguably deserve a full merits brief by a second attorney." In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 409 n.23 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008).

The trial court appointed an interpreter to assist appellant during the proceedings below.

When an appellant requests pro se access to the record in an Anders case, the onus shifts to the court of appeals to ensure that his request is satisfied and that he has been given "access to, and an adequate opportunity to review, the appellate record." Id. at 320. After issuing an order specifying the procedure to be followed "so that all interested parties are on the same page," the court "must continue to monitor the situation and may not, in any event, rule on the validity of appellate counsel's motion to withdraw and Anders brief until it has satisfied itself that the appellant has been able to access the appellate record to prepare his response." Id. at 321-22; see Snoke v. State, 780 S.W.2d 210, 213 (Tex. Crim. App. 1989) ("If a defendant is to perfect a meaningful appeal, he must be denied neither the record nor the services of counsel merely because he cannot afford them.").

Accordingly, in the interest of justice and to ensure the protection of appellant's rights to due process and a meaningful appeal, this appeal is abated and remanded to the trial court, which shall conduct a hearing attended by appointed counsel and inform appellant- through an interpreter if necessary-that counsel has filed an Anders brief concluding that there is no reversible error, that appellant has the right to file a pro se response, that appellant's response must be filed in this Court within 60 days of the hearing date, and that appellant may request additional time by filing a written motion with the Court. The trial court shall take any action that it deems necessary, including the appointment of a translator or interpreter, to guarantee that appellant has meaningful access to the appellate record and an adequate opportunity to prepare a pro se response if he so desires. See Tex. R. App. P. 43.6 (providing that "court of appeals may make any other appropriate order that the law and the nature of the case require"); see also Tran v. State, No. 01-94-00839-CR, 1995 WL 489153, at *1 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] Aug. 17, 1995, no pet.) (order) (not designed for publication) (following similar procedure).

Following the hearing, which shall be transcribed, the trial court shall order the appropriate supplemental clerk's and reporter's records-including all appropriate findings, conclusions, and orders-to be prepared and forwarded to this Court no later than August 2, 2024. See Tex. R. App. P. 34.5(c)(2), .6(d) (authorizing supplementation of clerk's and reporter's records).

It is so ordered.

Abated and Remanded


Summaries of

Sanchez-Beiza v. State

Court of Appeals of Texas, Third District, Austin
Jul 3, 2024
No. 03-22-00077-CR (Tex. App. Jul. 3, 2024)
Case details for

Sanchez-Beiza v. State

Case Details

Full title:Everardo Sanchez-Beiza, Appellant v. The State of Texas, Appellee

Court:Court of Appeals of Texas, Third District, Austin

Date published: Jul 3, 2024

Citations

No. 03-22-00077-CR (Tex. App. Jul. 3, 2024)