Billy Bob Oppelt v. State ( 2014 )


Menu:
  •                                                                        The State of TexasAppellee/s
    Fourth Court of Appeals
    San Antonio, Texas
    December 12, 2014
    No. 04-14-00392-CR
    Billy Bob OPPELT,
    Appellant
    v.
    THE STATE OF TEXAS,
    Appellee
    From the 187th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas
    Trial Court No. 2010CR5849
    Honorable Raymond Angelini, Judge Presiding
    ORDER
    Appellant’s court-appointed attorney has filed a brief and motion to withdraw pursuant to
    Anders v. California, 
    386 U.S. 738
     (1967), in which he asserts there are no meritorious issues to
    raise on appeal. Counsel sent copies of the brief and motion to withdraw to appellant, Billy Bob
    Oppelt, and explained to Oppelt his rights to review the record, file a pro se brief, and file a pro
    se petition for discretionary review if this court determines the appeal is frivolous. See Kelly v.
    State, 
    436 S.W.3d 313
     (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). In addition, counsel’s letter advised appellant to
    immediately file a motion in this court if he wished to review the appellate record, and counsel
    enclosed a form motion for this purpose. See 
    id.
    No timely request for the record has been filed in this court. If appellant desires to file a
    pro se brief, we order that he do so by January 12, 2015.
    The State has filed a notice waiving its right to file a brief in this case unless appellant
    files a pro se brief. If appellant files a timely pro se brief, the State may file a responsive brief no
    later than thirty days after appellant’s pro se brief is filed in this court.
    We further order the motion to withdraw filed by appellant’s counsel is held in abeyance
    pending further order of the court. See Penson v. Ohio, 
    488 U.S. 75
    , 80-82, 
    109 S. Ct. 346
    , 
    102 L. Ed.2d 300
     (1988) (holding that a motion to withdraw should not be ruled on before appellate
    court independently reviews the record to determine whether counsel’s evaluation that the appeal
    is frivolous is sound); Schulman v. State, 
    252 S.W.3d 403
    , 410-11 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008)
    (same). Accordingly, no new attorney will be appointed for appellant at this time.
    We order the clerk of this court to serve a copy of this order on appellant, his counsel,
    the attorney for the State, and the clerk of the trial court.
    _________________________________
    Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice
    IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said
    court on this 12th day of December, 2014.
    ___________________________________
    Keith E. Hottle
    Clerk of Court
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 04-14-00392-CR

Filed Date: 12/16/2014

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 12/16/2014