Martin Perez v. the State of Texas

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: July 28, 2022
• Docket: 04-22-00205-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas July 28, 2022

No. 04-22-00205-CR

Martin PEREZ, Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas, Appellee

From the 81st Judicial District Court, Wilson County, Texas Trial Court No. CRW2103070 Honorable Russell Wilson, Judge Presiding

ORDER

Appellant’s court-appointed attorney has filed a brief and motion to withdraw pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), in which he asserts there are no meritorious issues to raise on appeal. Counsel certifies he served copies of the brief and motion on appellant, informed appellant of his right to review the record and file his own brief, informed appellant of his right to seek discretionary review should the court of appeals declare the appeal frivolous, and provided appellant with a form for requesting the record and explained to appellant the procedure for obtaining the record. See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014); Nichols v. State, 954 S.W.2d 83 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1997, no pet.); Bruns v. State, 924 S.W.2d 176, 177 n.1 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1996, no pet.). As of the date of this order, appellant has not filed the record-request motion provided to him by his counsel.

If appellant desires to file a pro se brief, we ORDER that he do so by August 26, 2022. At this time, the State has filed a notice waiving its right to file a brief in this case unless appellant files a pro se brief. If appellant files a timely pro se brief, the State may file a responsive brief no later than thirty days after appellant’s pro se brief is filed in this court.

We further ORDER the motion to withdraw filed by appellant’s counsel be held in abeyance pending further order of the court. See Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80–82 (1988) (holding that motion to withdraw should not be ruled on before appellate court independently reviews record to determine whether counsel’s evaluation that appeal is frivolous is sound); Schulman v. State, 252 S.W.3d 403, 410–11 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (same). _________________________________ Rebeca C. Martinez, Chief Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said court on this 28th day of July, 2022.

___________________________________ MICHAEL A. CRUZ, Clerk of Court