Christopher Laney v. State

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedFebruary 5, 2014
Docket04-13-00783-CR
StatusPublished

This text of Christopher Laney v. State (Christopher Laney 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.

Bluebook
Christopher Laney v. State, (Tex. Ct. App. 2014).

Opinion

The State

Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas February 5, 2014

No. 04-13-00783-CR and 04-13-00784-CR

Christopher LANEY, Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas, Appellee

From the 227th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 2007CR6078W and 2010CR12838 Honorable Philip A. Kazen, Jr., Judge Presiding

ORDER

Appellant’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 certifies he has served copies of the brief and motion on appellant, has informed appellant of his right to review the record and file his own brief, and has explained to appellant the procedure for obtaining the record. See Nichols v. State, 954 S.W.2d 83 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1997, no pet.); Bruns v. State, 924 S.W.2d 176, 177 n.1 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1996, no pet.).

If appellant desires to file a pro se brief, we order that he do so on or before March 7, 2014. 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. Alternatively, if appellant does not file a timely pro se brief, the State may file a brief in response to counsel’s brief no later than April 7, 2014.

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). 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 5th day of February, 2014.

___________________________________ Keith E. Hottle Clerk of Court

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

Related

Anders v. California
386 U.S. 738 (Supreme Court, 1967)
Penson v. Ohio
488 U.S. 75 (Supreme Court, 1988)
In Re Schulman
252 S.W.3d 403 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 2008)
Bruns v. State
924 S.W.2d 176 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1996)
Nichols v. State
954 S.W.2d 83 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1997)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Christopher Laney v. State, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/christopher-laney-v-state-texapp-2014.