Richard Joel Ortega v. State ( 2006 )

NO. 07-06-0016-CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT AMARILLO

PANEL D

MAY 16, 2006 ______________________________

RICHARD JOEL ORTEGA,

Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee

_________________________________

FROM THE 108th DISTRICT COURT OF POTTER COUNTY;

NO. 46,448-E; HON. ABE LOPEZ, PRESIDING _______________________________ Dismissal _______________________________

Before QUINN, C.J., and REAVIS and CAMPBELL, JJ.

Richard Joel Ortega appeals from the judgment of the trial court. We abated the cause to determine, among other things, whether appellant cared to prosecute the appeal. Though he initially stated that he did, he subsequently informed the trial court via two letters that he did not. Thereafter, the trial court executed findings of fact and conclusions of law memorializing appellant's decision to forego appeal. So too did it attach copies of appellant's letters to its findings.

Per Rule 2 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, we deem appellant's two letters as requests to withdraw his notice of appeal. Appellant having so requested, we dismiss the appeal per Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 42.2(a).

Brian Quinn

Chief Justice

Do not publish.

d>false false false EN-US X-NONE X-NONE 0 pt 0 pt

NOS. 07-10-0418-CR

07-10-0419-CR

                                                   IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

                                       FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

                                                                 AT AMARILLO

                                                                     PANEL C

                                                                  JUNE 3, 2011

                                            ______________________________

                                                    BRYANT KESSLER JONES,

                                                                                                                        Appellant

                                                                             v.

                                                        THE STATE OF TEXAS,

                                                                                                                        Appellee

_________________________________

         FROM THE CRIMINAL DISTRICT COURT NO. TWO OF TARRANT COUNTY;

                NOS. 1207009R & 1208348R; HON. WAYNE SALVANT, PRESIDING

                                           _______________________________

                                                   ABATEMENT AND REMAND

                                           _______________________________

Before QUINN, C.J., and HANCOCK and PIRTLE, JJ.

Bryant Kessler Jones, appellant, appeals his convictions for engaging in organized criminal activity.  Appellant timely perfected his appeals. The clerk’s record was filed on November 4, 2010, and the reporter’s record on March 3, 2011.  Appellant’s brief was due on April 4, 2011.  On April 13, 2011, the court sent a letter to counsel for appellant notifying her that the brief was overdue and that it or a response was due on April 25, 2011.  Counsel filed a request to extend the time to file the brief which was granted to May 25, 2011.  To date, no brief nor an extension to file the brief has been filed. It appears as though appellant or his counsel simply ignored the deadlines previously imposed.

            Those convicted of criminal acts are entitled to effective assistance of counsel on appeal.  The failure of counsel to timely prosecute an appeal falls short of rendering such assistance.  Consequently, we abate the appeal and remand the cause to the Criminal District Court No. Two of Tarrant County (trial court) for further proceedings.  Upon remand, the trial court shall immediately cause notice of a hearing to be given and, thereafter, conduct a hearing to determine 1) whether appellant desires to prosecute this appeal, 2) whether appellant is indigent and entitled to appointed counsel, and 3) whether appellant’s current attorney was appointed or retained.  The trial court is ordered to execute pertinent findings of fact on these matters. Should it be found that appellant desires to pursue the appeal, is indigent, and his current legal counsel was appointed, then the trial court is ordered to remove appellant’s current legal counsel and appoint another to zealously represent appellant’s interest on appeal.   The name, address, phone number, telefax number, and state bar number of the new attorney must also be included in the court's findings of fact and conclusions of law.  Should it be determined that counsel was retained, then this appellate court will initiate appropriate disciplinary measures against him to secure compliance with its orders and the ethical and fiduciary duties due his client. Lastly, the trial court shall also cause to be developed 1) a supplemental clerk's record containing the findings of fact and conclusions of law and 2) a reporter's record transcribing the evidence and argument presented at the aforementioned hearing.  The foregoing supplemental clerk's and reporter’s records must be filed by the trial court with the clerk of this court on or before June 30, 2011.  Should additional time be needed to perform these tasks, the trial court may request same on or before June 30, 2011.

It is so ordered.

                                                                                                            Per Curiam

Do not publish.