Molly Ortiz v. State

Order entered October 4, 2018
In The
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05-18-00081-CR
MOLLY ORTIZ, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 2
Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. F16-30318-I
ORDER
On September 17, 2018, the Clerk of the Court transmitted a letter to appellant’s counsel
directing counsel to provide written verification showing counsel had sent appellant a letter that
(1) notified her of counsel’s motion to withdraw and accompanying Anders brief; (2) informed
her of her right to review the record and prepare a pro se response to the Anders brief; and (3)
informed her of her right to seek discretionary review in the event of an adverse judgment from
this Court. The Clerk’s letter further directed counsel to provide the Court with current contact
information and a mailing address for appellant. On September 27, 2018, counsel responded that
she had not sent appellant the required letter because there is no indication in the trial court
record of appellant’s address and the telephone number trial counsel gave her for appellant’s
mother is incorrect. Counsel did not describe any other efforts to find her client.
An appellant who fails to keep her attorney informed of her current address forfeits the
right to receive a copy of the Anders brief and the right to file a pro se response. In re Schulman,
252 S.W.3d 403, 408 n.21 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (citing Gonzales v. State, 903 S.W.2d 404,
405 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 1995, no pet.). In finding that an appellant has forfeited the right to
participate in the Anders process, however, courts generally describe the reasonable
investigations appellate counsel made to try to find his or her client. See, e.g., Gonzales, 903
S.W.2d at 405 (counsel was unable to locate appellant even with the assistance of law
enforcement and prison officials); Tavera v. State, No. 03-13-00102-CR, 2014 WL 4536534, at
*1 (Tex. App.—Austin Sept. 12, 2014, no pet.) (not designated for publication) (counsel was
unable to find appellant, who had been deported to remote section of Mexico, even with
assistance of appellant’s family); Maxwell v. State, No. 08-00-00420-CR, 2001 WL 665581
(Tex. App.—El Paso June 14, 2001, no pet.) (counsel could not locate appellant because
appellant was discharged from prison without providing forwarding address, counsel had no
names or addresses of any relatives, and appellant’s only listed address was a motel room).
Accordingly, we ORDER appellate counsel to perform, within TEN DAYS of the date
of this letter, a reasonable investigation to determine if appellant can be located and contacted
regarding her appeal. Such an investigation may include determining whether appellant has a
listed telephone number, contacting trial counsel to determine if trial counsel has other address
information on appellant or appellant’s relatives, and contacting appellant’s community
supervision officer to determine if the officer has an address for appellant.1
If counsel is able to locate appellant, we ORDER appellate counsel to transmit to
appellant copies of the motion to withdraw, the Anders brief, and the letter informing appellant
1
We note that during the motion to suppress hearing, appellant testified she lives in Grand Prairie “on the corner of
Grand Prairie Road and Center.”
–2–
of her rights and then file a letter with the Court, within FOURTEEN DAYS of the date of this
letter, verifying that she has transmitted the motion, brief, and letter of rights to appellant.
If appellate counsel is unable to locate appellant after a reasonable investigation, we
ORDER appellate counsel to file, within FOURTEEN DAYS of the date of this letter, a letter
setting forth what efforts appellate counsel undertook to locate appellant.
/s/ CRAIG STODDART
JUSTICE
–3–