Danzel Rashad Warren v. State

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedDecember 19, 2014
Docket12-14-00341-CR
StatusPublished

This text of Danzel Rashad Warren v. State (Danzel Rashad Warren 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
Danzel Rashad Warren v. State, (Tex. Ct. App. 2014).

Opinion

FILE COPY

CAUSE NO. 12-14-00340-CR CAUSE NO. 12-14-00341-CR IN THE COURT OF APPEALS TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT TYLER, TEXAS

DANZEL RASHAD WARREN, } APPEALED FROM 114TH DISTRICT COURT APPELLANT

V. } IN AND FOR

THE STATE OF TEXAS, } SMITH COUNTY, TEXAS APPELLEE

ORDER Came on for review the status of the instant appeal, and the same having been considered, it appears that Appellant is not currently represented by counsel. On November 3, 2014, the Docketing Statement was due to be filed. TEX. R. APP. P. 32.2. On November 21, 2014, this Court notified Appellant that a Docketing Statement was to be filed and gave him until December 1, 2014, to file it. Thereafter, when no Docketing Statement was filed, Appellant was again notified on December 3, 2014, that the Docketing Statement was past due and was given until December 15, 2014, to file a Docketing Statement. As of the date of this Order, no satisfactory response has been received. Pursuant to TEX. R. APP. P. 32.2 it is ORDERED that the Honorable Christi J. Kennedy, Judge of the 114th District Court of Smith County, shall immediately conduct a hearing to determine the cause of Appellant’s failure to file the Docketing Statement and whether the Appellant has abandoned the appeal. It is FURTHER ORDERED that the trial court determine whether: (1) Appellant is indigent and entitled to the appointment of counsel on appeal; (2) Appellant has sufficient funds to retain counsel; or (3) Appellant desires to represent himself on appeal. FILE COPY

It is ADDITIONALLY ORDERED that once findings are made as to the above issues, the trial court shall appoint counsel, give Appellant an appropriate deadline for retaining counsel, or administer the appropriate warnings concerning the dangers of self-representation, in accordance with its findings and the court shall also take necessary action to insure the prompt filing of the Docketing Statement with this Court. It is FINALLY ORDERED that a supplemental record containing the court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law and any appropriate order(s) attendant thereto be certified to this Court on or before January 19, 2015. WITNESS the Honorable James T. Worthen, Chief Justice of the Court of Appeals, 12th Court of Appeals District of Texas, at Tyler. GIVEN UNDER MY HAND AND SEAL OF SAID COURT, at my office this the 18th day of December 2014, A.D. CATHY S. LUSK, CLERK 12TH COURT OF APPEALS

By: ________________________________ Katrina McClenny, Chief Deputy Clerk

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Danzel Rashad Warren v. State, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/danzel-rashad-warren-v-state-texapp-2014.