Adam Moses Ramos v. State

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: August 7, 2014
• Docket: 07-13-00447-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

In The Court of Appeals Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo ________________________

No. 07-13-00447-CR ________________________

ADAM MOSES RAMOS, APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE

On Appeal from the 47th District Court Potter County, Texas Trial Court No. 66,280-A; Honorable Dan Schaap, Presiding

August 7, 2014

ORDER ON PRO SE REQUEST FOR RECORD Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and PIRTLE, JJ.

Following a plea of not guilty, Appellant, Adam Moses Ramos, was convicted by

a jury of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon and sentenced to thirteen years

confinement.1 On July 21, 2014, Appellant’s court-appointed counsel filed a brief

pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744-45, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493

(1967), wherein he concluded that Appellant’s appeal was frivolous. Counsel also filed

1 TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 22.02(a) (West 2011). a motion to withdraw as required by In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 406 (Tex. Crim.

App. 2008), which included a copy of a letter to Appellant satisfying the educational

burdens imposed by law.

Pending before this Court is Appellant’s pro se request for a copy of the appellate

record in this appeal. His request is dated July 28, 2014. In Kelly v. State, __ S.W.3d

__, No. PD-0702-13, 2014 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 911 (Tex. Crim. App. June 25, 2014),

the Court of Criminal Appeals held that appointed counsel has a duty in an Anders case

to assist his client in filing a motion to access the appellate record, if the client desires to

file a response. The Court further held that the ultimate responsibility for ensuring “one

way or another” that an appellant is granted access to the record falls on appellate

courts. Id. at *2. Kelly further requires appellate courts to enter a formal written order

ruling on a pro se motion to access the appellate record in an Anders appeal. Id. at *21.

Appellant’s pro se request notwithstanding, appointed counsel’s letter to his client

dated July 19, 2014, provides “[w]e have previously given you copies of the Reporter’s

Record and Clerk’s Record for your review.” Based on this statement, because

Appellant already has a copy of the appellate record, his request is rendered moot.

This Court sua sponte grants Appellant an extension of time to September 22, 2014, in

which to file a pro se response to counsel’s brief should he desire to do so.

It is so ordered.

Per Curiam

Do not publish.