Robinson v. State

661 S.W.2d 279, 1983 Tex. App. LEXIS 5720
Court of Appeals of Texas·Decided November 3, 1983·No. 13-82-338-CR·Published·Cited by 23 cases

Opinion

OPINION

NYE, Chief Justice.

This is an appeal from a conviction of voluntary manslaughter. The jury found the defendant guilty and assessed punishment at 15 years in the Texas Department of Corrections. Timely notice of appeal was given. Appellant was represented at trial and on appeal by retained counsel.

The record is before us without a transcription of the court reporter’s notes or any bills of exceptions. No designation specifying matters for inclusion in the appellate record appears in the transcript. See Art. 40.09(2) TEX.CODE CRIM.PRO. ANN. (Vernon Supp. 1982-83). No pauper’s affidavit was filed as prescribed by Art. 40.09(5) which would entitle appellant to a free copy of the transcription of the court reporter’s notes. No objections were made to the appellate record as permitted by Art. 40.09(7). Appellant’s brief was due in this Court on or before February 17, 1983, and no brief was filed.

Appellant’s counsel was notified of the completion and approval of the transcript and that this case was docketed in this Court. He was advised of the submis *281 sion date in accordance with Tex.Cr.App.R. 204. We conclude that the complete inaction of appellant’s counsel demonstrates a lack of diligence in this cause even though he gave notice of appeal. Therefore, there is nothing but the transcript that is presented for review. See: Zamora v. State, 568 S.W.2d 355, 356 (Tex.Cr.App.1978). We have reviewed this record for fundamental error and find none. The judgment of the trial court is accordingly AFFIRMED.

We take this opportunity to set forth in detail the policy of this Court on certain matters pertaining to criminal appeals. This is necessary because of the tremendous case load of this Court and of the increasing number of criminal cases tried in this district and the corresponding criminal appeals to this Court.

Since this Court obtained criminal jurisdiction on September 1,1981, we have been repeatedly faced with appellants represented by attorneys who failed to comply with the appropriate deadlines imposed by Art. 40.09. In the past, the failure to comply with the deadlines imposed by this article had little effect on the disposition of appeals because the Court of Criminal Appeals was overwhelmed with appeals. Compliance with the rules made little difference to the attorneys involved because of the long delay in the appellate process. When this Court gained criminal jurisdiction in 1981, it was not unusual for a criminal case to have been on appeal for three or even four years or longer. Almost all were over two years old. That is no longer the case. This Court has worked diligently to remedy this situation. We are almost completely current in our criminal docket. It is our intent to set a criminal case for submission on the first available submission date following expiration of the statutory briefing time. In most cases, this will be the first available submission date following the 60th day after notice of approval of the record. This will give both appellant and the State sufficient time to file briefs in accordance with Art. 40.09(9) and (10). We pause to note that in most instances, the State’s attorneys are complying with the filing deadlines. We commend these attorneys and all other attorneys who comply with the rules.

Occasionally an attorney for the appellant or the State will not be able to meet the appropriate statutory deadline for filing appellate matters. This Court will consider timely filed motions for extension of time for good cause shown, but these motions must comply with the provision of Tex.Cr. App.R. 6, which provides that each motion shall set forth facts in the following sequence:

(1) the court below, in which the case is pending;
(2) the number and style of the case in the court below;
(3) the offense for which the appellant was convicted;
(4) the punishment assessed against the appellant;
(5) the present deadline for the filing of the item in question;
(6) the length of time requested for the extension;
(7) the number of extensions of time which have been previously granted regarding the item in question;
(8) the facts relied upon to show good cause for the requested extension, and
(9) when an extension of time is requested for the filing of a transcription of the court reporter’s notes, the facts relied upon to show good cause must be supported by the affidavit of the court reporter, or the certificate of the trial judge, which shall include the court reporter’s estimate of the earliest date when the transcription can be completed.

Extensions of time will be granted only when there is a compliance in form and for good cause shown. Tex.Cr.App. Rules 4 and 6. Mattox v. State, 663 S.W.2d 457 (Tex.App.—Corpus Christi 1983).

When an appellant needs an extension of time and files a motion requesting an extension to some future date, this Court expects the attorney to meet the requested deadline without the necessity of filing fur *282 ther motions. This Court will not look with favor upon multiple motions for extensions of time which cause delay in the appellate process.

A party may present oral argument when the case is set for submission. Oral argument must be requested when the brief is timely filed. Tex.Cr.App.R. 205. Only under unusual circumstances will this Court allow oral argument when the parties have not adhered to the provisions of Rule 205. Rescheduling of oral argument will be made only in cases of emergency.

Where counsel is retained and no brief is filed in accordance with the Code of Criminal Procedure, this Court will conclude that there has been a lack of diligence and that there is nothing presented for review. See Zamora v. State, 568 S.W.2d 355 (Tex.Cr.App.1978). We will, however, in every case, review the entire record for fundamental error. See Carter v. State, 656 S.W.2d 468 (Tex.Cr.App.1983).

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

Robinson v. State, 661 S.W.2d 279, 1983 Tex. App. LEXIS 5720 (Tex. Ct. App. 1983).

661 S.W.2d 279 (Robinson v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Galvin Dixon v. State
Court of Appeals of Texas, 2014
Sampson v. State
854 S.W.2d 659 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1992)
Skinner v. State
837 S.W.2d 633 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1992)
Strickland v. State
818 S.W.2d 457 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1991)
Rios v. State
791 S.W.2d 509 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1989)
Ex Parte Axel
757 S.W.2d 369 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1988)
Ward v. State
740 S.W.2d 794 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1987)
Allen v. State
730 S.W.2d 374 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1987)
Longoria v. State
721 S.W.2d 513 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1986)
Roberts v. State
705 S.W.2d 803 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1986)
Ward v. State
704 S.W.2d 903 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1986)
Thomas v. State
704 S.W.2d 804 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1985)
Shead v. State
697 S.W.2d 784 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1985)
Rodriguez v. State
697 S.W.2d 734 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1985)
Soliz v. State
693 S.W.2d 518 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1985)
Miller v. State
665 S.W.2d 599 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1984)
Gomez v. State
662 S.W.2d 443 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1983)