Raymond Paul Schmidt v. State

Court of Appeals of Texas

Raymond Paul Schmidt v. State

DecidedJuly 15, 2014

Docket04-14-00272-CR

StatusPublished

This text of Raymond Paul Schmidt v. State (Raymond Paul Schmidt 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

Raymond Paul Schmidt v. State, (Tex. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

The State of TexasAppellee/s

Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas July 15, 2014

No. 04-14-00272-CR

Raymond Paul SCHMIDT, Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

From the 227th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 2013CR6225 Honorable Andrew Carruthers, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

This is an appeal from appellant’s conviction under section 38.04 of the Texas Penal Code. Appellant’s brief was due July 9, 2014. Instead of filing the brief, on July 9, 2014, appellant filed a “Motion for Abatement Until Decision by Court of Criminal Appeals.” In the motion, appellant contends that the issue in this appeal — the constitutionality of section 38.04 of the Texas Penal Code — has been recently resolved against appellant’s position by the Court of Criminal Appeals in Ex parte Jones. However, a motion for rehearing has been filed. Appellant asserts that if the rehearing is denied, meaning the issue at hand is resolved against appellant, his counsel will file a brief pursuant to Anders v. California. However, if the rehearing is granted and the court reverses itself, a full brief on the merits relying on Jones will be filed. Based on the pending rehearing in Jones, and its applicability to the present appeal, appellant requests that we abate this appeal until “two weeks after the Court of Criminal Appeals issues its mandate in Ex parte Jones.”

After reviewing the motion, we agree that abatement is warranted and would save judicial time and resources. Accordingly, we GRANT appellant’s motion in part and ORDER this appeal ABATED. We ORDER appellant to notify this court in writing no later than five days after the date the mandate issues in Ex parte Jones. Upon notification, the appeal will be reinstated by order of this court. At that time, the court will set a new briefing deadline for appellant’s brief.

_________________________________ Marialyn Barnard, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said court on this 15th day of July, 2014.

___________________________________ Keith E. Hottle Clerk of Court

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

The State of TexasAppellee/s

Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas July 15, 2014

No. 04-14-00272-CR

Raymond Paul SCHMIDT, Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

From the 227th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 2013CR6225 Honorable Andrew Carruthers, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

This is an appeal from appellant’s conviction under section 38.04 of the Texas Penal Code. Appellant’s brief was due July 9, 2014. Instead of filing the brief, on July 9, 2014, appellant filed a “Motion for Abatement Until Decision by Court of Criminal Appeals.” In the motion, appellant contends that the issue in this appeal — the constitutionality of section 38.04 of the Texas Penal Code — has been recently resolved against appellant’s position by the Court of Criminal Appeals in Ex parte Jones. However, a motion for rehearing has been filed. Appellant asserts that if the rehearing is denied, meaning the issue at hand is resolved against appellant, his counsel will file a brief pursuant to Anders v. California. However, if the rehearing is granted and the court reverses itself, a full brief on the merits relying on Jones will be filed. Based on the pending rehearing in Jones, and its applicability to the present appeal, appellant requests that we abate this appeal until “two weeks after the Court of Criminal Appeals issues its mandate in Ex parte Jones.”

After reviewing the motion, we agree that abatement is warranted and would save judicial time and resources. Accordingly, we GRANT appellant’s motion in part and ORDER this appeal ABATED. We ORDER appellant to notify this court in writing no later than five days after the date the mandate issues in Ex parte Jones. Upon notification, the appeal will be reinstated by order of this court. At that time, the court will set a new briefing deadline for appellant’s brief.

_________________________________ Marialyn Barnard, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said court on this 15th day of July, 2014.

___________________________________ Keith E. Hottle Clerk of Court

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Raymond Paul Schmidt v. State, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/raymond-paul-schmidt-v-state-texapp-2014.