Karen Lorena Lozano v. State

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedJanuary 19, 2017
Docket01-16-00083-CR
StatusPublished

This text of Karen Lorena Lozano v. State (Karen Lorena Lozano 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
Karen Lorena Lozano v. State, (Tex. Ct. App. 2017).

Opinion

COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER

Appellate case name: Karen Lorena Lozano v. The State of Texas

Appellate case number: 01-16-00083-CR

Trial court case number: 2006270

Trial court: County Criminal Court at Law No. 6 of Harris County

The complete record has been filed in the above-referenced appeal.1 Appellant has not filed a brief. On December 9, 2016, the Clerk of the Court notified appellant that a brief had not yet been filed and required a response within 10 days. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.8(b)(2). Appellant did not respond.

We therefore abate the appeal and remand for the trial court to immediately conduct a hearing at which a representative of the Harris County District Attorney’s Office and appellant shall be present. TEX. R. APP. 38.8(b)(2). If appellant is incarcerated, at the trial court’s discretion, appellant may participate in the hearing by closed-circuit video teleconferencing.2

1 On November 3, 2016, we notified appellant that because she had not paid or made arrangements to pay for the reporter’s record, we would consider and decide those issues or points that do not require a reporter’s record.

2 Any such teleconference must use a closed-circuit video teleconferencing system that provides for a simultaneous compressed full motion video and interactive communication of image and sound between the trial court, appellant, and any attorneys representing the State or appellant. On request of appellant, appellant and his counsel shall be able to communicate privately without being recorded or heard by the trial court or the attorney representing the State. The trial court is directed to:

(1) determine whether appellant wishes to prosecute the appeal; (2) if appellant does wish to prosecute the appeal, determine whether appellant is indigent, and: a. if appellant is now indigent, appoint substitute appellate counsel at no expense to appellant; b. if appellant is not indigent, admonish appellant of the dangers and disadvantages of self-representation, and: i. determine whether appellant is knowingly and intelligently waiving his right to counsel and, if so, obtain a written waiver of the right to counsel and set a date certain when appellant’s brief is due, regardless of whether this Court has yet reinstated the appeal and no later than 30 days from the date of the hearing; or, ii. if appellant does not wish to proceed pro se, provide a deadline by which appellant must hire an attorney; (3) make any other findings and recommendations the trial court deems appropriate; and (4) enter written findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendations as to these issues.

See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 1.051(a), (c), (d)(1), 26.04(j)(2), (p) (West Supp. 2016); TEX. R. APP. P. 38.8(b); Ward v. State, 740 S.W.2d 794, 798 (Tex. Crim. App. 1987); Lopez v. State, 486 S.W.2d 559, 560 (Tex. Crim. App. 1972); Fowler v. State, 874 S.W.2d 112, 114 (Tex. App.—Austin 1994, order, pet. ref’d).

The trial court shall have a court reporter record the hearing and file the reporter’s record with this Court within 25 days of the date of this order. The trial court clerk is directed to file a supplemental clerk’s record containing the trial court’s findings and recommendations with this Court within 25 days of the date of this order. If the hearing is conducted by video teleconference, a certified video recording of the hearing shall also be filed in this Court within 25 days of the date of this order.

The appeal is abated, treated as a closed case, and removed from this Court’s active docket. The appeal will be reinstated on this Court’s active docket when the supplemental clerk’s record and the reporter’s record of the hearing are filed in this Court. The court coordinator of the trial court shall set a hearing date and notify the parties and the Clerk of this Court of such date.

It is so ORDERED. Judge’s signature:/s/ Chief Justice Sherry Radack  Acting individually Date: January 19, 2017

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

Related

Lopez v. State
486 S.W.2d 559 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1972)
Ward v. State
740 S.W.2d 794 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1987)
Fowler v. State
874 S.W.2d 112 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1994)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Karen Lorena Lozano v. State, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/karen-lorena-lozano-v-state-texapp-2017.