Arturo Rosales AKA Artemio Rosales-Ayala v. State

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: September 4, 2015
• Docket: 04-15-00226-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

The State of

Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas September 4, 2015

No. 04-15-00226-CR

Arturo Rosales AKA Artemio Rosales-AYALA, Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas, Appellee

From the 186th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 2014CR1785 Honorable Jefferson Moore, Judge Presiding

ORDER Appellant Arturo Rosales’s court-appointed attorney has filed a brief and motion to withdraw pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), in which he asserts there are no meritorious issues to raise on appeal. Counsel sent copies of the brief and motion to withdraw to Rosales and explained his rights to review the record, file a pro se brief, and file a pro se petition for discretionary review if this court determines the appeal is frivolous. See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). In addition, counsel’s letter advised appellant to file a motion in this court within ten days if he wished to review the appellate record, and counsel enclosed a form motion for this purpose. See id. No timely request for record was filed in this court.

If appellant desires to file a pro se brief, we order that he do so on or before October 5, 2015.

The State has filed a notice waiving its right to file a brief in this case unless appellant files a pro se brief. If appellant files a timely pro se brief, the State may file a responsive brief no later than thirty days after appellant’s pro se brief is filed in this court.

We further order the motion to withdraw filed by appellant’s counsel is held in abeyance pending further order of the court. See Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80-82, 109 S. Ct. 346, 102 L. Ed.2d 300 (1988) (holding that a motion to withdraw should not be ruled on before appellate court independently reviews the record to determine whether counsel’s evaluation that the appeal is frivolous is sound); Schulman v. State, 252 S.W.3d 403, 410-11 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (same); see also Kelly, 436 S.W.3d at 319 (appointed counsel’s duties of representation do not cease when he files a motion to withdraw; counsel must continue to “act with competence, commitment and dedication to the interest of the client” until the court of appeals grants the motion). Accordingly, no new attorney will be appointed for appellant at this time.

We further order the clerk of this court to serve a copy of this order on appellant, his counsel, the attorney for the State, and the clerk of the trial court.

_________________________________ Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said court on this 4th day of September, 2015.

___________________________________ Keith E. Hottle Clerk of Court