Kendrae Amein Montez v. State

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedSeptember 27, 2013
Docket02-13-00070-CR
StatusPublished

This text of Kendrae Amein Montez v. State (Kendrae Amein Montez 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
Kendrae Amein Montez v. State, (Tex. Ct. App. 2013).

Opinion

FILE COPY

COURT OF APPEALS SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH

NO. 02-13-00069-CR NO. 02-13-00070-CR

KENDRAE AMEIN MONTEZ APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE

------------

FROM THE 213TH DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY

ABATEMENT ORDER

It has come to our attention that appellant's brief has not been filed.

Appellant’s brief was originally due on July 22, 2013. This court has previously

granted one extension of time to file appellant’s brief in this case. We have

notified the trial court judge and the attorneys of record that appellant's brief has

not been filed, as required by rule 38.8(b). See Tex. R. App. P. 38.8(b).

Because we have not received a satisfactory response to our prior notification

and in accordance with rule 38.8(b), we abate the appeal and remand this case

to the trial court. FILE COPY

The trial court shall conduct a hearing, with appellant and appointed counsel, Donald S. Gandy, present. At the hearing, the court shall make the following findings on the record:

1. Determine whether appellant desires to prosecute the appeal;

2. Determine why appointed counsel has not filed a brief and whether counsel has abandoned the appeal;

3. If appointed counsel has not abandoned the appeal and appellant desires to continue the appeal, determine the exact date that counsel will file a brief on appellant’s behalf in the court of appeals;

4. Determine whether substitute counsel should be appointed to represent appellant and appoint substitute counsel, if necessary;1

5. Determine whether appellant desires to proceed pro se. If so, admonish appellant of the dangers and disadvantages of self- representation in accordance with Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806, 835, 95 S. Ct. 2525, 2541 (1975), and Hubbard v. State, 739 S.W.2d 341, 345 (Tex. Crim. App. 1987), and determine whether appellant’s decision to proceed pro se is competently and intelligently made;

6. Take any other measures that the trial court deems necessary to insure appellant does not forfeit his right to appeal.

The trial court shall file a record of the hearing in this court on or before

Monday, October 28, 2013. The record shall include a supplemental reporter's

record and supplemental clerk's record. Upon our receipt of the supplemental

record, the appeal of this cause shall be reinstated automatically without further

order. 1If substitute counsel has been appointed to represent appellant, the supplemental record shall reflect that substitute counsel has been notified of the appointment. If appellant is incarcerated, the trial court shall also retain him in the county for a reasonable period of time to allow substitute counsel an opportunity to confer with appellant.

2 FILE COPY

The clerk of this court shall transmit a copy of this order to the attorneys of

record, the trial court judge, the trial court clerk, and the court reporter.

DATED September 27, 2013.

PER CURIAM

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

Related

Faretta v. California
422 U.S. 806 (Supreme Court, 1975)
Hubbard v. State
739 S.W.2d 341 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1987)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Kendrae Amein Montez v. State, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kendrae-amein-montez-v-state-texapp-2013.