David Earl Sweed v. State ( 2015 )


Menu:
  • Order filed June 25, 2015
    In The
    Fourteenth Court of Appeals
    ____________
    NO. 14-15-00145-CR
    ____________
    DAVID EARL SWEED, Appellant
    V.
    THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
    On Appeal from the 335th District Court
    Washington County, Texas
    Trial Court Cause No. 14907
    ORDER
    Appellant is not represented by counsel. On May 19, 2015, this court abated
    the appeal to determine whether appellant was entitled to appointed counsel on
    appeal. The trial court held a hearing and determined that appellant desires to
    represent himself on appeal.
    No brief has been filed. Rule 38.8 provides that we will not dismiss or
    consider the appeal without briefs unless it is shown the appellant no longer desires
    to prosecute his appeal or that he is not indigent and has failed to make necessary
    arrangements for filing a brief. Tex. R. App. P. 38.8. It is clear that the rule was
    designed to protect an indigent appellant from the failure of his appointed counsel
    to provide a brief. The rule further provides that under appropriate circumstances,
    “the appellate court may consider the appeal without briefs, as justice may
    require.” Tex. R. App. P. 38.8 (b)(4).
    A hearing has already been held as required under Rule 38.8. Because the
    trial court has already held one hearing to make the findings required under Rule
    38.8, and we can find nothing in the rules or case law that requires this court to
    once again send this matter back to the trial court, we decline to do so.
    Therefore, we REINSTATE the appeal and ORDER appellant to file a brief
    in this appeal on or before July 27, 2015. If appellant fails to file his brief as
    ordered, we will decide this appeal upon the record before the court. See Lott v.
    State, 
    874 S.W.2d 687
    , 688 (Tex. Crim. App. 1994) (affirming conviction on
    record alone where appellant failed to file a pro se brief after being properly
    admonished); Coleman v. State, 
    774 S.W.2d 736
    , 738–39 (Tex. App.—Houston
    [14th Dist.] 1989, no pet.) (holding that former rule 74(l)(2) (now Rule 38.8(b))
    permitted an appeal to be considered without briefs “as justice may require” when
    a pro se appellant has not complied with the rules of appellate procedure).
    PER CURIAM
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 14-15-00145-CR

Filed Date: 6/25/2015

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 9/22/2015