Larry G. Carranza v. State of Texas

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: November 14, 2001
• Docket: 04-01-00349-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

Nos. 04-01-00349-CR & 04-01-00350-CR

Larry CARRANZA,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 175th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court Nos. 1996-CR-0293 & 1999-CR-2128

Honorable Henry Schuble, Judge Presiding

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Tom Rickhoff, Justice
Alma L. López, Justice
Catherine Stone, Justice

Delivered and Filed: November 14, 2001

DISMISSED

On June 14, 2001, appellant's retained trial counsel, Catherine M. Valenzuela, filed a Notice of Nonrepresentation, attached to which was a hand-written pro se "Notice" from the appellant indicating he wanted the record so that he could prepare an appellate brief. In light of our concern that appellant receive due process of law, on June 19, 2001, this court abated these appeals to the trial court, see Duncan v. State, 653 S.W.2d 38, 40 (Tex. Crim. App. 1983), with instructions to the trial court to make appropriate findings and rule on these issues: (1) whether appellant desires to prosecute his appeals; (2) if so, whether appellant is indigent and should have appointed counsel to represent him on appeal and a reporter's record prepared and filed at no expense to himself; and (3) if appellant is not indigent, whether he has made the necessary arrangements for filing a brief.

On September 28, 2001, a supplemental record was filed, indicating the trial court ordered appellant to file proof of indigency, and that the appellant received a copy of the trial court's order, but did not respond. The trial court found that appellant did not wish to pursue his appeals. On October 3, 2001, this court ordered appellant to respond or object to the trial court's findings by October 17, 2001. The October 3rd order also informed appellant that if he did not file the appropriate response or objection, this court would deem his silence as agreement with the trial court that he does not desire to pursue his appeals, and the appeals would be dismissed. No response or objection has been filed.

The appeals are therefore DISMISSED.

DO NOT PUBLISH