Cornell Jackie Drummer v. State

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: October 28, 1998
• Docket: 04-92-00178-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

No. 04-92-00178-CR

Cornell Jackie DRUMMER, Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas, Appellee

From the 144th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 92-CR-1231 Honorable Susan Reed, Judge Presiding

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Alma L. López, Justice

Catherine Stone, Justice

Paul W. Green, Justice

Delivered and Filed: October 28, 1998

MOTION TO STAY APPELLATE PROCESS AND TO REMOVE APPELLATE COUNSEL DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION

Appellant was sentenced in the above-numbered cause on March 27, 1992. This court affirmed appellant's conviction in an opinion issued on January 27, 1993. In August 1997, appellant filed an application for a post-conviction writ of habeas corpus pursuant to Article 11.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, claiming that his appellate attorney deprived him of the opportunity to file a petition for discretionary review. On May 20, 1998, the Court of Criminal Appeals granted appellant an out-of-time petition for discretionary review, allowing him to file a petition in this court within thirty (30) days from the issuance of the Court of Criminal Appeals' mandate. The Court of Criminal Appeals' mandate issued June 5, 199; thus, appellant's petition for discretionary review was due in this court by July 6, 1998. The Court of Criminal Appeals granted a motion for extension of time to file appellant's petition, extending the filing deadline to September 1, 1998. Failing to meet this deadline, on September 3, 1998, appellant requested another extension of time to file his petition which was denied by the Court of Criminal Appeals. A subsequent motion was also denied.

Appellant has now filed in this court a motion to stay the appellate process in which he asks this court to stay his filing deadlines and formally remove his newly appointed counsel from representing him in this matter. We construe this motion as a motion for extension of time to file his petition for discretionary review. Although the petition for discretionary review was to be filed in this court, this court does not control matters related to the petition. Matters concerning timelines are properly directed to the Court of Criminal Appeals. See Tex. R. App. P. 68.2 (c) (explaining that Court of Criminal Appeals determines whether extensions of time to file petition for discretionary review will be granted). Likewise, any complaint regarding appellate counsel would be properly addressed to the Court of Criminal Appeals. Accordingly, appellant's motion is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

PER CURIAM

DO NOT PUBLISH

---

Return to
4th Court of Appeals Opinions