in the Matter of Approximately $80,600.00

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: January 5, 2015
• Docket: 01-14-00424-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

ACCEPTED 00 FIRST COURT OF APPEALS HOUSTON, TEXAS 1/5/2015 9:38:33 AM CHRISTOPHER PRINE CLERK

NO. 01-14-00424-CV

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FILED IN 1st COURT OF APPEALS FIRST COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT HOUSTON, TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION 1/5/2015 9:38:33 AM CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE Clerk IN THE MATTER OF $80,600.00

v.

STATE OF TEXAS

Appeal from the 351st Judicial District Court Harris County, Texas Honorable Mark Kent Ellis, Judge Presiding

APPELLANT’S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR EXTENSION

LAW OFFICE OF REGINA BACON CRISWELL Carriage Place 7803 Bent Briar San Antonio, Texas 78250 TELEPHONE: (210) 775-1155 FACSIMILE: (210) 251-2071 COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT TO THE HONORABLE JUSTICES OF THE COURT:

Now comes Appellant, and files this Response to the State’s Third Motion for

Extension of Time to File Brief and respectfully show the court as follows:

The State has requested three extensions of time to file its brief; the court

granted the first two motions with no further extensions. On December 31, 2014,

the day the State’s brief was due, it filed a third motion for extension on essentially

the same ground as its second motion; the attorney assigned to the case is busy

working on other appeals. In fact, despite notice that no further extensions would

be permitted, the State’s motion reflects the attorney for the state has not even

begun work on a responsive brief and requests yet another 30 day extension.

The State’s third requested extension is not for good cause and fails to comply

with TRAP 10.1(a)(5) and 10.5(b) because 1) the State made no attempt to confer

and its motion includes no certificate of conference and 2) the motion fails to state

that the State was previously granted two prior extensions to file its brief.

Moreover, the State had notice that its second motion was granted without further

extensions, yet waited until the extended deadline to file yet another motion

requesting another extension.

The legislative intent of the extremely severe time limitations to perfect an

appeal under §47.12 Tex. Code of Crim. Proc. is to ensure the rapid return of the

seized property to its owner, and to guarantee quick and efficient case processing. See State v. White, 930 S.W.2d 673, n.2 (Tex.App.-Waco 1996). Appellant

objects to the State’s third request for extension of time to file its brief; this court

should deny the motion and find the Appellant’s issues are unopposed.

WHEREFORE, Appellant prays the State’s third request for extension until

January 30, 2015 be denied.

Respectfully submitted this the 5th day of January, 2015.

Regina Bacon Criswell Attorney and Counselor at Law Carriage Place 7803 Bent Briar San Antonio, Texas 78250

By: /S/Regina Bacon Criswell SBN: 01496580 (210) 775-1155 (ofc) (210) 251-2071 (fax) Attorney for Petitioner

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE This is to certify that a true and correct copy of the above and forgoing will be served in accordance with the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure on the persons listed below in the manner indicated.

Dan McCrory Via E-File/E-mail Assistant District Attorney Harris County, Texas

/S/Regina Bacon Criswell REGINA B. CRISWELL