Lorena Monserrath Gandara v. State
This text of Lorena Monserrath Gandara v. State (Lorena Monserrath Gandara 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
Order entered August 16, 2018
In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-18-00449-CR
LORENA MONSERRATH GANDARA, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 15th Judicial District Court Grayson County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 068742
ORDER Before the Court is court reporter Misty Skinner’s August 10, 2018 request seeking a
second extension of time to file the reporter’s record.
In her July 13, 2018 first request for extension, Ms. Skinner stated that she had not
received payment for the record, and appellant’s counsel had informed her that appellant was not
sure if appellant was “going forward with the appeal.” By order entered July 19, 2018, the Court
granted Ms. Skinner an extension and ordered appellant to file, within ten days, verification that
she had requested the reporter’s record be prepared and had either paid for the record, made
arrangements to pay for the record, or was entitled to appeal without paying for the record.
In her second request, Ms. Skinner relates that she has not been paid for the record nor
has she had any further communication from appellant’s counsel. Appellant has not provided the verification as ordered. The clerk’s record has been filed in this appeal. Documents within the
clerk’s record show the trial court found appellant indigent and appointed counsel to represent
her for trial.
The Court ORDERS the trial court to conduct a hearing to determine whether appellant
intends to proceed with her appeal and, if so, whether she is entitled to proceed without payment
for the reporter’s record. In this regard, the trial court shall make appropriate findings and
recommendations and determine whether appellant desires to prosecute the appeal, whether
appellant is indigent, or if not indigent, whether retained counsel has abandoned the appeal, and
whether appellant is entitled to proceed without payment for the reporter’s record. If the trial
court cannot obtain appellant’s presence at the hearing, the trial court shall conduct the hearing in
appellant’s absence. See Meza v. State, 742 S.W.2d 708 (Tex. App.–Corpus Christi 1987, no
pet.) (per curiam). If appellant desires to prosecute the appeal and is indigent, the trial court is
ORDERED to take such measures as may be necessary to assure effective representation, which
may include appointment of new counsel.
We ORDER the trial court to transmit a record of the proceedings, which shall include
written findings and recommendations, to this Court within THIRTY DAYS of the date of this
order.
This appeal is ABATED to allow the trial court to comply with the above order. The
appeal shall be reinstated thirty days from the date of this order or when the findings are
received, whichever is earlier.
/s/ CRAIG STODDART JUSTICE
–2–
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Lorena Monserrath Gandara v. State, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lorena-monserrath-gandara-v-state-texapp-2018.