Raul Aguero Ayala v. State

Court of Appeals of Texas

Raul Aguero Ayala v. State

DecidedJanuary 6, 2017

Docket04-16-00388-CR

StatusPublished

This text of Raul Aguero Ayala v. State (Raul Aguero Ayala 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

Raul Aguero Ayala v. State, (Tex. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas January 6, 2017

No. 04-16-00388-CR

Raul Aguero AYALA, Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas, Appellee

From the 198th Judicial District Court, Kerr County, Texas Trial Court No. B14466 Honorable M. Rex Emerson, Judge Presiding

ORDER

On November 15, 2016, Appellant’s court-appointed attorney filed a brief and motion to withdraw pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), in which the attorney asserted there are no meritorious issues to raise on appeal. On November 18, 2016, we issued an order explaining that if appellant desired to file a pro se brief, he must do so by January 2, 2017. On December 5, 2016, appellant filed a motion for extension of time to file a pro se brief and also requested that we grant him “legal assistance that is not an attorney” to help him prepare his pro se brief. On December 9, 2016, we granted appellant’s motion for extension of time and ordered his pro se brief due February 1, 2017. However, we denied his request for legal assistance.

Appellant has now filed a Motion to Request Appointed Counsel. Pursuant to the procedures outlined in Anders, appellant will not be entitled to new appointed counsel until and unless this Court determines that there are colorable claims for appeal. See In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 109 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008). This Court will base its review on the appellate record, the Anders brief filed by appellant’s appointed counsel, and any pro se brief filed. See id. Only if this Court decides that there are any colorable claims for appeal will this case be abated and sent to the trial court for appointment of new counsel. See id. We therefore DENY appellant’s motion.

Appellant’s pro se brief remains due on February 1, 2017. _________________________________ Karen Angelini, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said court on this 6th day of January, 2017.

___________________________________ Keith E. Hottle Clerk of Court

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

Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas January 6, 2017

No. 04-16-00388-CR

Raul Aguero AYALA, Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas, Appellee

From the 198th Judicial District Court, Kerr County, Texas Trial Court No. B14466 Honorable M. Rex Emerson, Judge Presiding

ORDER

On November 15, 2016, Appellant’s court-appointed attorney filed a brief and motion to withdraw pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), in which the attorney asserted there are no meritorious issues to raise on appeal. On November 18, 2016, we issued an order explaining that if appellant desired to file a pro se brief, he must do so by January 2, 2017. On December 5, 2016, appellant filed a motion for extension of time to file a pro se brief and also requested that we grant him “legal assistance that is not an attorney” to help him prepare his pro se brief. On December 9, 2016, we granted appellant’s motion for extension of time and ordered his pro se brief due February 1, 2017. However, we denied his request for legal assistance.

Appellant has now filed a Motion to Request Appointed Counsel. Pursuant to the procedures outlined in Anders, appellant will not be entitled to new appointed counsel until and unless this Court determines that there are colorable claims for appeal. See In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 109 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008). This Court will base its review on the appellate record, the Anders brief filed by appellant’s appointed counsel, and any pro se brief filed. See id. Only if this Court decides that there are any colorable claims for appeal will this case be abated and sent to the trial court for appointment of new counsel. See id. We therefore DENY appellant’s motion.

Appellant’s pro se brief remains due on February 1, 2017. _________________________________ Karen Angelini, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said court on this 6th day of January, 2017.

___________________________________ Keith E. Hottle Clerk of Court

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Raul Aguero Ayala v. State, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/raul-aguero-ayala-v-state-texapp-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack