James Eric Loften v. State ( 2014 )

In The
Court of Appeals
Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont
____________________
NO. 09-13-00543-CR
____________________
JAMES ERIC LOFTEN, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
_______________________________________________________ ______________
On Appeal from the 75th District Court
Liberty County, Texas
Trial Cause No. CR29858
________________________________________________________ _____________
ORDER
The clerk’s record in the above styled and numbered cause was filed
February 18, 2014, and the reporter’s record was filed February 7, 2014. On April
3, 2014, the appellant’s court-appointed attorney, Alvin N. Saenz, was notified that
neither the brief of the appellant nor a motion for extension of time to file the brief
has been filed. On April 8, 2014, the Court granted an extension of time to file the
brief, noting that the extension was a “FINAL EXTENSION.” Although the brief
of the appellant was due to be filed May 19, 2014, the brief has not been filed.
1
We abate the appeal and remand the case to the trial court to conduct a
hearing at which a representative of the State, counsel for the appellant, and the
appellant shall be present in person. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.8(b)(3). The trial court
shall determine whether or not appellant desires to pursue his appeal. If appellant
desires to pursue his appeal, we direct the trial court to determine why the brief of
the appellant has not been filed, why appellant’s counsel has not responded to the
late notice from this Court, and whether good cause exists for appointed counsel,
Alvin N. Saenz, to be relieved of his duties as appellate counsel and replaced by
substitute counsel. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 26.04(j)(2) (West Supp.
2013). If the trial court determines that good cause exists to relieve appointed
counsel of his duties, we direct the trial court to appoint substitute counsel. If the
appellant desires to represent himself on appeal, and the trial court determines
appellant’s decision to relinquish benefits associated with counsel is knowingly
and intelligently made, the trial court may dismiss counsel and allow the appellant
to proceed pro se. See Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 836, 95 S. Ct. 2525, 45
L. Ed. 2d 562 (1975).
The record of the hearing, including any orders and findings of the trial court
judge, shall be sent to the appellate court for filing. The transcription of the court
2
reporter’s notes from the hearing and the recommendations of the trial court judge
are to be filed on or before June 30, 2014.
ORDER ENTERED May 29, 2014.
PER CURIAM
Before Kreger, Horton, and Johnson, JJ.
3