Raymond Clark v. State
This text of Raymond Clark v. State (Raymond Clark 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
The State of TexasAppellee/s
Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas February 19, 2014
No. 04-13-00330-CR
Raymond CLARK, Appellant
v.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
From the 186th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 2012CR4130 Honorable Maria Teresa Herr, Judge Presiding
O R D E R Appellant’s brief was originally due to be filed on December 18, 2013. On December 5, 2013, this court granted Appellant’s first motion for extension of time to file the brief until February 17, 2014. On the due date, Appellant filed a second motion for extension of time to file the brief until March 4, 2014, for a total extension of seventy-six days. Our December 5, 2013 order emphatically stated as follows: “NO FURTHER EXTENSIONS OF TIME TO FILE APPELLANT’S BRIEF WILL BE GRANTED.” Nevertheless, Appellant has requested another extension of time to file the brief based on counsel’s assertions that he has been preparing other briefs. Appellant’s second motion for extension of time is GRANTED IN PART with the following conditions. We ORDER Appellant to file the brief not later than Friday, February 28, 2014. The mailbox rule is suspended; this court must receive the brief not later than February 28, 2014. See TEX. R. APP. P. 2, 9.2(b). If Appellant fails to file the brief as ordered, we will immediately abate this appeal and remand it to the trial court for an abandonment hearing WITHOUT FURTHER NOTICE. See id. R. 38.8(b); Samaniego v. State, 952 S.W.2d 50, 52–53 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1997, no pet.). We will order the trial court to ensure that Appellant’s counsel personally appears at the hearing. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.8(b)(3). We remind Appellant’s counsel that, to protect Appellant’s rights, this court may “initiat[e] contempt proceedings against [A]ppellant’s counsel.” See id. R. 38.8(b)(4).
_________________________________ Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said court on this 19th day of February, 2014.
___________________________________ Keith E. Hottle Clerk of Court
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Raymond Clark v. State, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/raymond-clark-v-state-texapp-2014.