Margnus Obinna Ibe v. State

Opinion

COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER ON MOTION

Cause number: 01-12-00422-CR Style: Margnus Obinna Ibe v The State of Texas Date motion filed*: January 15, 2013 Type of motion: Motion for extension of time to file appellant’s brief Party filing motion: Appellant Document to be filed: Brief

Is appeal accelerated? No

If motion to extend time: Original due date: September 17, 2012 Number of previous extensions: -1- Current Due date: January 9, 2013 Date Requested: 90 days

Ordered that motion is:

 Granted in part If document is to be filed, document due: February 15, 2013  Absent extraordinary circumstances, the Court will not grant additional motions to extend time  Denied  Dismissed (e.g., want of jurisdiction, moot) We previously stated that “[a]bsent extraordinary circumstances, the Court will not grant additional motions to extend time.” In his motion, appellant requests an extension because counsel “had to travel out of the country for family emergencies.” Appellant does not, however, state how long counsel is required to be out of the country, nor does he provide any basis upon which the court could determine the necessary duration of an extension. Therefore, appellant has not shown “extraordinary circumstances” to justify a 90-day extension, and the motion is granted in part and denied in part.

Judge's signature: /s/ Jim Sharp  Acting Panel consists of ____________________________________________

Date: January 23, 2013 November 7, 2008 Revision