Christopher Ernest Braughton v. State

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Christopher Ernest Braughton v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 2017 Tex. App. LEXIS 3552
Court of Appeals of Texas·Decided December 7, 2015·No. 01-15-00393-CR·Published

Opinion

ACCEPTED 01-15-00393-CR FIRST COURT OF APPEALS HOUSTON, TEXAS 12/7/2015 10:48:31 AM CHRISTOPHER PRINE CLERK

No. 01-15-00393-CR

In the FILED IN 1st COURT OF APPEALS Court of Appeals HOUSTON, TEXAS For the 12/7/2015 10:48:31 AM First District of Texas CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE Clerk At Houston



No. 1389139 In the 228th Criminal District Court Of Harris County, Texas

CHRISTOPHER ERNEST BRAUGHTON Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS Appellee

STATE’S MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME IN WHICH TO FILE APPELLATE BRIEF

TO THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS OF TEXAS:

COMES NOW THE STATE OF TEXAS, appellee, by and through the

undersigned Assistant District Attorney, in accordance with Rules 10.5(b)(1) and

38.6(d) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, and files this motion for

Page 1 of 5 extension of time in which to file the State’s brief in this case, and, in support

thereof, presents the following:

1. In the 228th Criminal District Court of Harris County, Texas, in cause

number 1389139, the State charged appellant by indictment with the felony

offense of murder in The State of Texas v. Christopher Ernest Braughton.

2. A jury found appellant guilty of murder as charged in the indictment and

assessed appellant’s punishment at confinement in the Texas Department of

Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division, for twenty years.

3. On February 11, 2015, the trial court sentenced appellant in accordance with

the jury’s verdict and, on February 12, 2015, the court certified appellant’s

right to appeal. The trial court also entered an affirmative deadly weapon

finding in the court’s written judgment of conviction and sentence.

4. Appellant filed a motion for new trial on March 9, 2015.

5. Appellant timely filed written notice of appeal on April 16, 2015.

6. Appellant filed his appellate brief with this Court on October 5, 2015.

7. The State’s appellate brief is due on December 7, 2015.

8. This is the State’s second request for an extension.

9. The State requests that this Court extend the timeframe for the State to file

its appellate brief to January 7, 2016.

10.The facts relied upon to explain the need for this extension are:

Page 2 of 5 a. The undersigned attorney was recently assigned to this case, after the

attorney originally assigned to this case transferred to another

division in the Harris County District Attorney’s Office.

b. During the timeframe allowed for researching and preparing the

State’s appellate brief for this case, the undersigned attorney has also

been responsible for researching and preparing the State’s appellate

briefs in the following cases that are also assigned to her:

i. Juan Mendoza v. State of Texas; No. 14-15-00537-CR

ii. Darius Houston-Randle v. State of Texas; No. 14-15-00272-CR

iii. Genaro Tamayo v. State of Texas; No. 14-15-00141-CR

iv. Alicia Correa v. State of Texas; No. 01-14-00849-CR

c. The undersigned attorney has been responsible for responding to

numerous questions and requests for assistance from prosecutors in

the Trial Bureau of the Harris County District Attorney’s Office

regarding matters which were time-sensitive and critical for cases

currently in trial.

d. And, finally, the undersigned attorney has been assigned to a Harris

County District Attorney’s Office investigative team which, in

coordination with the Texas Rangers and with the Houston Police

Department, is tasked with investigating the alleged sale of human

Page 3 of 5 tissue and organs at Planned Parenthood Gulf Coast. The

investigation has been time-consuming, involving numerous meetings

and travel to Austin and Fort Worth, and thus has substantially added

to the undersigned attorney’s workload.

11. Consequently, the undersigned attorney has been unable to complete the

State’s reply brief in this case in the time permitted, despite due diligence,

and the requested extension of time is necessary to permit the undersigned

attorney to adequately investigate, complete, and file the State’s appellate

brief for this cause.

12. The State’s motion is not for purposes of delay, but so that justice may be

done.

WHEREFORE, the State prays that this Court will grant the State an

extension of time, until January 7, 2016, for the undersigned attorney to complete

and file the State’s appellate brief in this case.

Respectfully submitted,

/S/ Melissa Hervey

MELISSA P. HERVEY Assistant District Attorney Harris County, Texas State Bar No. 24053741 1201 Franklin Street, Suite 600

Page 4 of 5 Houston, Texas 77002 Telephone (713) 274-5826 Fax (713) 755-5809 Hervey_Melissa@dao.hctx.net

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

This is to certify that the undersigned counsel has directed the e-filing

system eFile.TXCourts.gov to serve a true and correct copy of the foregoing

document to Niles Illich, appellant’s attorney of record on appeal, on December 7,

2015, at the following e-mail address, through the electronic service system

provided by eFile.TXCourts.gov:

Niles@appealstx.com

MELISSA P. HERVEY Assistant District Attorney Harris County, Texas State Bar Number: 24053741 1201 Franklin Street, Suite 600 Houston, Texas 77002 Telephone (713) 274-5826 Fax (713) 755-5809 Hervey_Melissa@dao.hctx.net

Page 5 of 5

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Christopher Ernest Braughton v. State, (Tex. Ct. App. 2015).

Christopher Ernest Braughton v. State (Christopher Ernest Braughton v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.