Raymond Ellis Newsome v. State

CourtTexas Supreme Court
DecidedJune 8, 2018
Docket05-18-00176-CR
StatusPublished

This text of Raymond Ellis Newsome v. State (Raymond Ellis Newsome v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Texas Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Raymond Ellis Newsome v. State, (Tex. 2018).

Opinion

Order entered June 8, 2018

In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-18-00176-CR

RAYMOND ELLIS NEWSOME, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 363rd Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. F14-20384-W

ORDER When appellant did not provide us with written verification that he had paid or made

arrangements to pay for the reporter’s record, we ordered the appeal submitted without the

reporter’s record. See TEX. R. APP. P. 37.3. We then ordered appellant’s brief filed by April 28,

2018. When the brief was not filed, we notified appellant by postcard dated May 2, 2018 and

directed him to file a brief along with a motion to extend time to file the brief by May 12, 2018.

To date, no brief has been filed and we have had no correspondence from appellant.

Therefore, we ORDER the trial court to conduct a hearing to determine why appellant’s

brief has not been filed. In this regard, the trial court shall make appropriate findings and

recommendations and determine whether appellant desires to prosecute this appeal or whether

appellant has abandoned the appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.8(b). If the trial court cannot obtain appellant’s presence at the hearing, the trial court shall conduct the hearing in appellant’s

absence. See Meza v. State, 742 S.W.2d 708 (Tex. App.–Corpus Christi 1987, no pet.) (per

curiam). If appellant is indigent, the trial court is ORDERED to take such measures as may be

necessary to assure effective representation, which may include appointment of new counsel.

We ORDER the trial court to transmit a record of the proceedings, which shall include

written findings and recommendations, to this Court within THIRTY DAYS of the date of this

order.

We DIRECT the Clerk to send a copy of this order to Judge Tracy Holmes, Presiding

Judge, 363rd Judicial District Court; to retained counsel Scottie Allen; and to the Dallas County

District Attorney.

This appeal is ABATED to allow the trial court to comply with the above order. The

appeal shall be reinstated thirty days from the date of this order or when the findings are

received, whichever is earlier.

/s/ LANA MYERS JUSTICE

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

Related

Meza v. State
742 S.W.2d 708 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1987)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Raymond Ellis Newsome v. State, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/raymond-ellis-newsome-v-state-tex-2018.