Armando Vejar A/K/A Armando Vejar Penaloza A/K/A Armando Penalosa v. State
This text of Armando Vejar A/K/A Armando Vejar Penaloza A/K/A Armando Penalosa v. State (Armando Vejar A/K/A Armando Vejar Penaloza A/K/A Armando Penalosa v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
In The Court of Appeals Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo
No. 07-12-00520-CR
ARMANDO VEJAR A/K/A ARMANDO VEJAR PENALOZA A/K/A ARMANDO PENALOSA, APPELLANT
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE
On Appeal from the 69th District Court Hartley County, Texas Trial Court No. 1081H, Honorable Ron Enns, Presiding
April 30, 2013
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR EXTENSION Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and PIRTLE, JJ.
Following a plea of not guilty, Appellant, Armando Vejar a/k/a Armando Vejar
Penaloza a/k/a Armando Penalosa, was convicted by a jury of possession of less than
one gram of cocaine 1 and sentenced to 300 days in a state jail facility, suspended in
favor of four years community supervision, and a $1,500 fine which was not suspended.
Sentence was imposed on October 29, 2012, and notice of appeal was filed on
1 TEX. HEALTH & SAFETY CODE ANN. § 481.115(b) (W EST 2010). November 26, 2012. The clerk’s record and two supplemental clerk’s records have
been filed. The reporter’s record was originally due to be filed on February 26, 2013.
On February 27, 2013, the court reporter requested an extension of time citing
Appellant’s failure to pay for the record as the reason and was granted until March 29,
2013, in which to file the record.
On March 28, 2013, a subsequent request for an extension of time was filed
again citing Appellant’s failure to pay as the reason. By letter dated April 1, 2013, this
Court granted an extension to May 1, 2013. That letter also advised the court reporter
that a supplemental clerk’s record showed the trial court had appointed Jerod Pingelton
to represent Appellant on appeal.
Now pending in this Court is another request for an extension of time to file the
reporter’s record. The reason provided is “Appellant has not paid or made
arrangements to pay for the record.” Appellant is proceeding in forma pauperis on
appeal and has been appointed counsel by the trial court to pursue his appeal. The
court reporter’s reason for requesting an extension is not good cause for granting an
extension.
By order of this Court, the request for an extension of time in which to file the
reporter’s record is denied. The reporter’s record is due instanter. Failure to file the
reporter’s record including arguments, evidence and exhibits, if any, on or before
Tuesday, May 14, 2013, will result in abatement of the appeal and remand of the cause
to the trial court for further proceedings to determine why the reporter’s record has not
been filed.
2 It is so ordered.
Per Curiam
Do not publish.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Armando Vejar A/K/A Armando Vejar Penaloza A/K/A Armando Penalosa v. State, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/armando-vejar-aka-armando-vejar-penaloza-aka-armando-penalosa-v-state-texapp-2013.