Lorenzo K. La Salle v. State
This text of Lorenzo K. La Salle v. State (Lorenzo K. La Salle 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
NO. 07-05-0430-CR
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
AT AMARILLO
PANEL D
JANUARY 20, 2006 ______________________________
LORENZO K. LA SALLE,
Appellant
v.
THE STATE OF TEXAS,
Appellee
_________________________________
FROM THE 47th DISTRICT COURT OF POTTER COUNTY;
NO. 35,213-A; HON. HAL MINER, PRESIDING _______________________________
ON ABATEMENT AND REMAND _______________________________
Before QUINN, C.J., and REAVIS and CAMPBELL, JJ.
Lorenzo K. La Salle appeals his conviction from the 47th District Court. The clerk’s
record was due to be filed on December 27, 2005. On January 4, 2006, this Court notified
the clerk by letter to complete and return the form advising the Court of the status of the
clerk’s record no later than January 17, 2006. No status form or response has been
received by this Court.
Accordingly, we abate this appeal and remand the cause to the 47th District Court
of Potter County (trial court) for further proceedings. Upon remand, the trial court shall immediately cause notice of a hearing to be given and, thereafter, conduct a hearing to
determine the following:
1. why the clerk’s record has not been filed;
2. when the clerk’s record can reasonably be filed in a manner that does not have the practical effect of depriving the appellant of his right to appeal or delaying the resolution of this appeal, and
3. whether appellant desires to prosecute the appeal.
The trial court shall cause the hearing to be transcribed. So too shall it 1) execute
findings of fact and conclusions of law addressing the foregoing issues, 2) cause to be
developed a supplemental clerk’s record containing its findings of fact and conclusions of
law and all orders it may issue as a result of its hearing in this matter, and 3) cause to be
developed a reporter’s record transcribing the evidence and arguments presented at the
aforementioned hearing. Additionally, the district court shall then file the supplemental
record and reporter’s record transcribing the hearing with the clerk of this court on or before
February 20, 2006. Should further time be needed by the trial court to perform these tasks,
then same must be requested before February 20, 2006.
It is so ordered.
Per Curiam
Do not publish.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Lorenzo K. La Salle v. State, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lorenzo-k-la-salle-v-state-texapp-2006.