Randle v. State

Court of Appeals of Texas

Randle v. State

878 S.W.2d 318, 1994 WL 245506

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas

DecidedJune 8, 1994

DocketNo. 01-93-00859-CR

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 878 S.W.2d 318 (Randle 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.

Bluebook

Randle v. State, 878 S.W.2d 318, 1994 WL 245506 (Tex. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinions

ORDER

HUTSON-DUNN, Justice.

The Court today considered appellant’s motion for leave to file an additional point of error concerning ineffective assistance of counsel. We deny the motion.

All points of error that an appellant wishes to rely upon and all responses thereto are to be submitted in the original briefs. Rochelle v. State, 791 S.W.2d 121, 124 (Tex. Crim.App.1990). Any new matters a party wants to bring before the court may be filed in a supplemental or amended brief but only “as justice requires and upon such reasonable terms as the court may prescribe.” Id.; Tex.R.App.P. 74(o).

This motion was filed seven weeks after appellant’s brief was filed, three weeks after the State’s brief was filed, and a month before submission. The original brief already has a point of error asserting ineffective assistance of counsel. The additional brief alleges additional ways in which trial counsel was ineffective. If it is filed, the State will have to file another brief in order to be heard in answer to appellant’s new contentions. No reason is stated why this new complaint was not included in the original brief. We do not see a “compelling matter” that rises to the level which would justify granting leave to file an additional point of error. Rochelle, 791 S.W.2d at 124.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

ORDER

HUTSON-DUNN, Justice.

The Court today considered appellant’s motion for leave to file an additional point of error concerning ineffective assistance of counsel. We deny the motion.

All points of error that an appellant wishes to rely upon and all responses thereto are to be submitted in the original briefs. Rochelle v. State, 791 S.W.2d 121, 124 (Tex. Crim.App.1990). Any new matters a party wants to bring before the court may be filed in a supplemental or amended brief but only “as justice requires and upon such reasonable terms as the court may prescribe.” Id.; Tex.R.App.P. 74(o).

This motion was filed seven weeks after appellant’s brief was filed, three weeks after the State’s brief was filed, and a month before submission. The original brief already has a point of error asserting ineffective assistance of counsel. The additional brief alleges additional ways in which trial counsel was ineffective. If it is filed, the State will have to file another brief in order to be heard in answer to appellant’s new contentions. No reason is stated why this new complaint was not included in the original brief. We do not see a “compelling matter” that rises to the level which would justify granting leave to file an additional point of error. Rochelle, 791 S.W.2d at 124.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

878 S.W.2d 318, 1994 WL 245506, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/randle-v-state-texapp-1994.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack