Nubia Sanchez v. State

Order entered August 7, 2019
In The
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05-18-00366-CR
NUBIA SANCHEZ, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 86th Judicial District Court
Kaufman County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 17-10431-86-F
ORDER
Pending is appellant’s “Motion to Set Aside Conviction” and “Motion for Final
Disposition of Motion to Set Aside Judgment,” and “Motion to Extend [Time] to File Motion for
Rehearing and Motion for Appellate Counsel.”
The motions to set aside the conviction and for final disposition of the motion to set aside
the judgment are DENIED. On May 7, 2019, we issued a memorandum opinion affirming
appellant’s conviction. See Sanchez v. State, No. 05-18-00366-CR, 2019 WL 2004050 (Tex.
App.––Dallas May 7, 2019, no pet. h.) (mem. op., not designated for publication). Having
affirmed appellant’s conviction based on the only issue that was raised on appeal, we have no
basis upon which to act on appellant’s request.
The motion to extend the time to file the motion for rehearing and for appellate counsel is
GRANTED, in part. On June 7, 2019, we issued an order granting appellant until August 6,
2019, to file a pro se motion for rehearing. We will grant appellant an additional thirty days
from the date of this order, or until September 6, 2019, in which to file a pro se motion for
rehearing. No additional extensions of time will be granted absent a showing of good cause.
However, appellant’s request for appellate counsel is DENIED. Our records show that
appellant’s counsel of record, Taryn Davis, sent appellant a letter on May 9, 2019, informing her
that after reviewing our opinion and all of the pleadings filed in the case, counsel was of the
professional opinion that this case did not meet the statutory requirements for a petition for
review to the Court of Criminal Appeals. The letter went on to advise appellant that she could
still file a pro se petition for discretionary review, and the letter specified when that petition had
to be filed and other legal requirements. The letter also enclosed a copy of our memorandum
opinion. See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319–20 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (setting forth
burdens on counsel); see also High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 813 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.]
1978).
/s/ LANA MYERS
JUSTICE