James Eric Loften v. State

Opinion

In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

____________________

NO. 09-13-00543-CR

____________________

JAMES ERIC LOFTEN, Appellant V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee _______________________________________________________ ______________

On Appeal from the 75th District Court Liberty County, Texas

Trial Cause No. CR29858

________________________________________________________ _____________

ORDER

The clerk’s record in the above styled and numbered cause was filed February 18, 2014, and the reporter’s record was filed February 7, 2014. On April 3, 2014, the appellant’s court-appointed attorney, Alvin N. Saenz, was notified that neither the brief of the appellant nor a motion for extension of time to file the brief has been filed. On April 8, 2014, the Court granted an extension of time to file the brief, noting that the extension was a “FINAL EXTENSION.” Although the brief of the appellant was due to be filed May 19, 2014, the brief has not been filed.

2

We abate the appeal and remand the case to the trial court to conduct a hearing at which a representative of the State, counsel for the appellant, and the appellant shall be present in person. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.8(b)(3). The trial court shall determine whether or not appellant desires to pursue his appeal. If appellant desires to pursue his appeal, we direct the trial court to determine why the brief of the appellant has not been filed, why appellant’s counsel has not responded to the late notice from this Court, and whether good cause exists for appointed counsel, Alvin N. Saenz, to be relieved of his duties as appellate counsel and replaced by substitute counsel. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 26.04(j)(2) (West Supp. 2013). If the trial court determines that good cause exists to relieve appointed counsel of his duties, we direct the trial court to appoint substitute counsel. If the appellant desires to represent himself on appeal, and the trial court determines appellant’s decision to relinquish benefits associated with counsel is knowingly and intelligently made, the trial court may dismiss counsel and allow the appellant to proceed pro se. See Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 836, 95 S.Ct. 2525, 45 L.E.2d 562 (1975).

The record of the hearing, including any orders and findings of the trial court judge, shall be sent to the appellate court for filing. The transcription of the court

3

reporter’s notes from the hearing and the recommendations of the trial court judge are to be filed on or before June 30, 2014.

ORDER ENTERED May 29, 2014.

PER CURIAM

Before Kreger, Horton, and Johnson, JJ.