Ronnie Lynn James, Jr. v. State

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: November 20, 2018
• Docket: 04-12-00515-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas November 20, 2018

No. 04-12-00515-CR

Ronnie Lynn JAMES, Jr., Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas, Appellee

From the 25th Judicial District Court, Guadalupe County, Texas Trial Court No. 11-0560-CR Honorable W.C. Kirkendall, Judge Presiding

ORDER Sitting: Karen Angelini, Justice Marialyn Barnard, Justice Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

On February 6, 2013, appellant’s appointed counsel filed an Anders brief and a motion to withdraw. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). In the Anders brief, counsel asserted there were no meritorious issues to raise on appeal. Appointed counsel informed appellant of his right to file a pro se brief. See Nichols v. State, 954 S.W.2d 83, 85 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1997, no pet.); Bruns v. State, 924 S.W.2d 176, 177 n.1 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1996, no pet.). On February 12, 2013, this court rendered an order advising appellant that if he desired to file a pro se brief, such brief was due in this court within forty-five days of the date of the order. Appellant did not file a pro se brief. Accordingly, after reviewing the Anders brief filed by appointed counsel, the State’s responsive brief, and reviewing the entire appellate record, we rendered an opinion and judgment in which we held there was no reversible error and agreed with counsel that the appeal was wholly frivolous. See James v. State, No. 04-12-00515-CR, 2013 WL 5508367, at *1 (Tex. App.—San Antonio Oct. 2, 2013, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication). We also granted appointed counsel’s motion to withdraw and advised appellant of his right to file a petition for discretionary review. See id. Our opinion and judgment were rendered on October 2, 2013. Appellant filed a pro se motion to extend time to file a petition for discretionary review, which was granted by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. However, appellant never filed a petition. Accordingly, our mandate issued on January 27, 2014, and was acknowledged by the trial court clerk on January 29, 2014. On November 19, 2018, appellant filed a pro se document, describing it as a petition for writ of mandamus. However, upon review, we construe the document filed by appellant as a pro se brief filed in response to the Anders brief filed by his appointed trial counsel in 2013. Given our prior order regarding the deadline for filing a brief and the issuance of our mandate, appellant’s pro se brief is untimely. We therefore ORDER appellant’s pro se brief stricken.

We order the clerk of this court to serve a copy of this order on all counsel and the pro se appellant.

_________________________________ Marialyn Barnard, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said court on this 20th day of November, 2018.

___________________________________ KEITH E. HOTTLE, Clerk of Court