From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Thomas v. State

STATE OF TEXAS IN THE TENTH COURT OF APPEALS
Jan 23, 2019
No. 10-18-00175-CR (Tex. App. Jan. 23, 2019)

Opinion

No. 10-18-00175-CR

01-23-2019

REGINALD KEITH THOMAS, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee


From the 19th District Court McLennan County, Texas
Trial Court No. 2014-290-C1

ORDER

Appellant requests an extension of time to file his response to a motion to withdraw and a supporting Anders brief in this appeal. Appellant has requested 90 additional days because his access to the law library where he is in prison, and his legal knowledge, is limited. In a separate document, appellant also requests the appointment of new counsel. Neither of these documents are properly served. See TEX. R. APP. P. 9.5. The Clerk of this Court does not accept service for the McLennan County District Attorney. Nevertheless, we use Rule 2 to proceed to a timely disposition of appellant's requests. Id. 2.

Because appellant need not file a formal brief which contains specific references to the record or case authorities but only a response to counsel's motion to withdraw and Anders brief, appellant's response is sufficient if it directs the Court to the issues upon which appellant believes the trial court erred. In conducting its review of the entire record for possible error, the Court will give special attention to the issues to which the Court is directed by appellant's response. If the Court is persuaded that an issue is not frivolous and might support an argument for error, then the Court will remand this appeal to the trial court for the appointment of new counsel to fully brief the issue. See In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 409 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008).

Accordingly, because the form of a response to an Anders brief is relatively less restrictive in nature than that which is necessary for a formal brief, appellant's motion for extension of time to file his response is granted in part. Appellant's response is due 35 days from the date of this order. Further, because new counsel is not appointed unless this Court decides an issue is not frivolous and might support an argument for error, appellant's motion for the appointment of counsel is denied. Id.

PER CURIAM Before Chief Justice Gray, and Justice Davis
Motion for extension granted in part
Motion for appointment of counsel denied
Order issued and filed January 23, 2019


Summaries of

Thomas v. State

STATE OF TEXAS IN THE TENTH COURT OF APPEALS
Jan 23, 2019
No. 10-18-00175-CR (Tex. App. Jan. 23, 2019)
Case details for

Thomas v. State

Case Details

Full title:REGINALD KEITH THOMAS, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

Court:STATE OF TEXAS IN THE TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

Date published: Jan 23, 2019

Citations

No. 10-18-00175-CR (Tex. App. Jan. 23, 2019)