Joshua Denagelo Myles v. State
This text of Joshua Denagelo Myles v. State (Joshua Denagelo Myles 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.
Opinion
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON
ORDER
Appellate case name: Joshua Denagelo Myles v. The State of Texas
Appellate case number: 01-17-00483-CR Trial court case number: 1522818
Trial court: 262nd District Court of Harris County
Appellant Joshua Denagelo Myles’s court-appointed counsel filed a brief concluding that the above-referenced appeal is frivolous. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 1400 (1967). Counsel has not, however, filed a letter in accordance with Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014), “to notify his client that, should he wish to exercise his right to review the appellate record in preparing to file a response to the Anders brief, he should immediately file a motion for pro se access to the appellate record with the applicable court of appeals,” which letter includes “a form motion . . ., lacking only the appellant’s signature and the date, . . . inform[ing] the appellant that, in order to effectuate his right to review the appellate record pro se, should he choose to invoke it, he must sign and date the motion and send it on to the court of appeals within ten days of the date of the letter from appellate counsel.” 436 S.W.3d at 319–20. Accordingly, we order appellant’s appointed counsel, Terrence Gaiser, to send a letter and a form motion, such as the motion attached to this order, to the appellant in accordance with Kelly. Id. We further order appellant’s appointed counsel to notify us, in writing, “that he has (1) informed the appellant of the motion to withdraw, (2) provided the appellant with the requisite copies while notifying him of his various pro se rights, and (3) supplied him with a form motion for pro se access to the appellate record.” Id. at 320. Counsel shall send the required letter to his client and shall file the required notice with the Clerk of this Court within 14 days of the date of this order. It is so ORDERED.
Judge’s signature: /s/ Jennifer Caughey X Acting individually Acting for the Court
Date: August 14, 2018 Return to: First Court of Appeals 301 Fannin Street Houston, Texas 77002
No. 01-___-__________-CR _________________ § COURT OF APPEALS § 1ST DISTRICT The State of Texas § HOUSTON, TEXAS
Pro se Motion for Access to Appellate Record To the Honorable Justices of Said Court: Appellant’s appointed counsel has filed a brief in the above styled and numbered cause pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Appellant now moves this Court to provide him with a copy of the appellate record including the clerk’s record and the court reporter’s record for use in preparing his pro se response to counsel’s brief. Appellant requests an extension of time of 30 days from the granting of this motion to file a pro se response to counsel’s Anders brief. Respectfully submitted,
_______________________ Pro se Appellant _____________ Unit,TDCJ # __________ ____________, Texas _______
Certificate of Service This is to certify that on ____________, a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing document was served by mail on the Harris County District Attorney’s Office at 1201 Franklin Street #600, Houston, Texas 77002. _______________________ Pro se Appellant
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Joshua Denagelo Myles v. State, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/joshua-denagelo-myles-v-state-texapp-2018.