From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Smith v. State

Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
May 7, 2018
No. 05-17-00034-CR (Tex. App. May. 7, 2018)

Opinion

No. 05-17-00034-CR

05-07-2018

JOSEPH TODD SMITH, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee


On Appeal from the 366th Judicial District Court Collin County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 366-80590-2016

ORDER

Before the Court is appellant's May 2, 2018 first motion for extension of time to file appellant's pro se response to counsel's Anders brief. Appellant's pro se response was originally due on February 5, 2018. The due date was subsequently extended to March 5, 2018 after it was discovered that the record sent to appellant did not include a transcript of a competency hearing. Because the reporter's record of the competency hearing was not mailed to appellant until March 20, 2018, the Court again extended appellant's deadline to April 27, 2018. Appellant now seeks a forty-five day extension on the grounds he has limited access to the law library, limited legal knowledge, "institutional problems" involving his mental health, and the voluminous exhibits to the competency hearing were provided on a digital video disk that he cannot access.

Appellant has also filed an April 26, 2018 request for abatement. In his request, appellant contends he should be entitled to appointment of new appellate counsel because counsel failed to file a motion for new trial even though the record shows the trial court "overrode" the finding of the psychiatrist who examined him that appellant was incompetent to stand trial and counsel filed an Anders brief without having access to the competency hearing record. Appellant also asserts that his "mental incompetency continues to hinder litigation pertaining to his case and appeal."

We conclude appellant's request for abatement fulfills the function of a pro se response to counsel's Anders brief. Moreover, in light of appellant's professed mental health issues, the technical obstacles he faces in accessing the documents, the length of time that has accrued in affording appellant the opportunity to respond to counsel's brief, we further conclude that granting additional time for a pro se response from appellant would not likely be helpful to the Court and does not serve the ends of justice. Accordingly, we DEEM appellant's request for abatement to be his pro se response.

Appellant's first motion for extension of time to file his pro se response is DENIED.

We DIRECT the Clerk to transmit a copy of this order, by electronic transmission, to counsel. We DIRECT the Clerk to send a copy of this order, by first class mail, to Joseph Todd Smith, TDCJ# 2107016, Clements Unit, 9601 Spur 591, Amarillo, Texas 79107-9606.

/s/ LANA MYERS

JUSTICE


Summaries of

Smith v. State

Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
May 7, 2018
No. 05-17-00034-CR (Tex. App. May. 7, 2018)
Case details for

Smith v. State

Case Details

Full title:JOSEPH TODD SMITH, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

Court:Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

Date published: May 7, 2018

Citations

No. 05-17-00034-CR (Tex. App. May. 7, 2018)