Noel Martinez Balderas v. State ( 2015 )


Menu:
  •                                                                        The State of TexasAppellee/s
    Fourth Court of Appeals
    San Antonio, Texas
    March 27, 2015
    No. 04-14-00862-CR
    Noel Martinez BALDERAS,
    Appellant
    v.
    THE STATE OF TEXAS,
    Appellee
    From the 187th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas
    Trial Court No. 2012CR7108
    Honorable Raymond Angelini, Judge Presiding
    ORDER
    Appellant Noel M. Balderas’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 certifies that he sent copies of the brief and motion
    to withdraw to Balderas with a letter explaining 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 states he
    advised appellant to immediately file a motion in this court if he wishes to review the appellate
    record and that he provided Balderas a form motion for this purpose. See 
    id.
    No timely request for record was filed in this court. If appellant desires to file a pro se
    brief, we order that he do so on or before April 27, 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 (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); see also Kelly, 436 S.W.3d at
    319 (appointed counsel’s duties of representation do not cease when he files a motion to
    withdraw; counsel must continue to “act with competence, commitment and dedication to the
    interest of the client” until the court of appeals grants the motion). Accordingly, no new attorney
    will be appointed for appellant at this time.
    We further 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 27th day of March, 2015.
    ___________________________________
    Keith E. Hottle
    Clerk of Court
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 04-14-00862-CR

Filed Date: 3/27/2015

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 10/16/2015