Margnus Obinna Ibe v. State ( 2013 )


Menu:
  •                                   COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE
    FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON
    ORDER
    Appellate case name:       Margnus Obinna Ibe v. The State of Texas
    Appellate case number:     01-12-00422-CR
    Trial court case number: 11DCR056785A
    Trial court:               268th District Court of Fort Bend County
    The State has filed a “Motion to Dismiss for Nonprosecution,” requesting that we either
    dismiss this appeal or decide the appeal on the record and without any appellate briefs. The
    complete record has been filed in the above-referenced appeal since August 16, 2012, and
    appellant’s brief was originally due on September 17, 2012. On October 2, 2012, we abated this
    case to the trial court to determine appellant’s representation for this appeal. The trial court held
    a hearing on our abatement order, found that appellant was not indigent, and allowed appellant’s
    trial counsel to withdraw. On November 8, 2012, we reinstated the case and ordered appellant’s
    brief be filed no later than December 10, 2012. Appellant’s newly-hired appellate attorney filed
    a motion for extension of time to file the appellant’s brief on December 10, 2012, which was
    granted. Counsel filed a second motion for extension on January 15, 2013, which was granted in
    part, and we ordered the brief filed by February 15, 2013 and stated that no additional extensions
    would be granted absent extraordinary circumstances. On March 1, 2013, the Clerk of this Court
    notified appellant that a brief had not yet been filed and required that a response be filed within
    10 days. Nevertheless, appellant has failed to file a brief.
    Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure prohibits the dismissal of criminal cases based on the
    failure to file an appellant’s brief and requires abatement of an appeal from a criminal case for a
    hearing in the trial court when an appellant fails to adequately respond to a late brief notice. See
    TEX. R. APP. P. 38.8(b)(1), (2). Therefore, we DENY the State’s motion.
    Further, we abate the appeal and remand for the trial court to immediately conduct a
    hearing at which a representative of the Fort Bend County District Attorney’s Office and
    appellant’s counsel, Omotayo Lawal, shall be present. TEX. R. APP. 38.8(b)(2). Appellant shall
    also be present for the hearing in person or, if appellant is incarcerated, at the trial court’s
    discretion, appellant may participate in the hearing by closed-circuit video teleconferencing.1
    1      Any such teleconference must use a closed-circuit video teleconferencing system that
    The trial court shall have a court reporter record the hearing. The trial court is directed
    to:
    (1) make a finding on whether appellant wishes to prosecute the appeal;
    (2) if appellant does wish to prosecute the appeal, determine whether counsel Omotayo
    Lawal has abandoned the appeal;
    (3) if counsel Omotayo Lawal has not abandoned the appeal:
    a.     inquire of counsel the reasons, if any, that he has failed to file a brief on
    appellant’s behalf;
    b.     determine whether appellant has paid counsel’s fee for preparing an
    appellate brief and determine whether appellant has made any other
    necessary arrangements for filing a brief; and
    c.     set a date certain when appellant’s brief is due, regardless of whether this
    Court has yet reinstated the appeal and no later than 30 days from the date
    of the hearing2;
    d.     notify appellant and counsel that the failure of appellant to make the
    necessary arrangements to file a brief by the deadline may result in the
    consideration of his appeal without briefs;
    (4) if Omotayo Lawal has abandoned this appeal, enter a written order relieving
    Omotayo Lawal of his duties as appellant’s counsel, including in the order the basis
    for the finding of abandonment, and:
    a.     determine whether appellant is knowingly and intelligently waiving his
    right to counsel and, if so, obtain a written waiver of the right to counsel
    and set a date certain when appellant’s brief is due, regardless of whether
    this Court has yet reinstated the appeal and no later than 30 days from the
    date of the hearing; or,
    b.     if appellant does not wish to proceed pro se, provide a deadline by which
    appellant must hire an attorney, which shall not be more than 15 days from
    the date of the hearing, and provide a deadline for filing appellant’s brief,
    which shall be no more than 45 days from the date of the hearing;
    (5) make any other findings and recommendations the trial court deems appropriate; and
    (6) enter written findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendations as to these
    issues, separate and apart from any docket sheet notations.
    See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 1.051(a), (d)(1), (f) (West Supp. 2012); TEX. R. APP. P.
    38.8(b); Gonzalez v. State, 
    117 S.W.3d 831
    , 837 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003) (stating that
    presumption in favor of right to choice of counsel may be overridden by other factors relating to
    provides for a simultaneous compressed full motion video and interactive communication
    of image and sound between the trial court, appellant, and any attorneys representing the
    State or appellant. On request of appellant, appellant and his counsel shall be able to
    communicate privately without being recorded or heard by the trial court or the attorney
    representing the State.
    2      Based on the extreme delays in this case and appellant’s repeated failures to file a brief,
    no extensions of time to file appellant’s brief will be granted.
    fair and orderly administration of justice); Webb v. State, 
    533 S.W.2d 780
    , 784, 785 (Tex. Crim.
    App. 1976) (stating that criminal defendant may not manipulate right to choose counsel so as to
    interfere with fair administration of justice; “The trial court should therefore admonish an
    accused who desires to represent himself regarding the wisdom and practical consequences of
    that choice.”); Carter v. State, No. 01-95-00977-CR, 
    1997 WL 184385
    , *1 (Tex. App.—Houston
    [1st Dist.] April 17, 1997, pet. ref’d) (not designated for publication) (“Thus, the public interest
    in the fair and orderly administration of justice may be greater than an accused’s right to have
    counsel of his own choice.”); cf. TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 26.04(j)(2) (authorizing trial
    court to order appointed counsel to withdraw after finding of good cause is entered on record).
    The trial court clerk is directed to file a supplemental clerk’s record containing the trial
    court’s findings and recommendations with this Court by no later than August 22, 2013. The
    court reporter is directed to file the reporter’s record of the hearing by no later than August 22,
    2013. If the hearing is conducted by video teleconference, a certified video recording of the
    hearing shall also be filed in this Court no later than August 22, 2013.
    The appeal is abated, treated as a closed case, and removed from this Court’s active
    docket. The appeal will be reinstated on this Court’s active docket when the supplemental
    clerk’s record and the reporter’s record are filed in this Court. The court coordinator of the trial
    court shall set a hearing date and notify the parties and the Clerk of this Court of such date.
    It is so ORDERED.
    Judge’s signature: /s/ Jim Sharp
     Acting individually      Acting for the Court
    Date: July 31, 2013
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 01-12-00422-CR

Filed Date: 7/31/2013

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 10/16/2015