Thomas Wilson v. State

Order entered February 25, 2019
In The
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05-18-00801-CR
THOMAS WILSON, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 283rd Judicial District Court
Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. F16-71680-T
ORDER
Before the Court is appellant’s February 21, 2019 motion for extension of time to file his
brief. We DENY the motion because it does not comply with the rule. See TEX. R. APP. P.
10.5(b)(1)(a) (requiring motions to extend time to state the deadline for filing the item in
question), (c) (requiring the motion to state the facts relied on to reasonably explain the need for
an extension), (d) (requiring the motion to state the number of previous extensions granted
regarding the item in question).1
We do not seek to overburden responsible counsel in this simplest of motions practice,
but motions must comply with the appropriate rules. See Calce v. Dorado, 309 S.W.3d 719, 730
1
Note: counsel filed this motion twenty days after the brief was initially due, and only tells us now that the brief is
“late due to extensive research.” He provides no explanation why the motion itself is late. See TEX. R. APP. P.
10.5(b)(1)(c), 38.6(d).
(Tex. App.—Dallas 2010, no pet.) (and cases cited therein discussing what is a “reasonable
explanation”).
We ORDER appellant’s brief filed by 5:00 p.m. on March 8, 2019. If appellant’s brief
is not filed by that date, the Court will abate the appeal for a hearing under rule 38.8(b)(2). See
TEX. R. APP. P. 38.8(b)(2) (“If the appellate court does not receive a satisfactory response within
ten days, the court must order the trial court to immediately conduct a hearing to determine
whether the appellant desires to prosecute his appeal, whether the appellant is indigent, or, if not
indigent, whether retained counsel has abandoned the appeal, and to make appropriate findings
and recommendations.”).
/s/ CORY L. CARLYLE
JUSTICE