Sean Reeves v. State

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedNovember 23, 2011
Docket10-11-00417-CR
StatusPublished

This text of Sean Reeves v. State (Sean Reeves 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
Sean Reeves v. State, (Tex. Ct. App. 2011).

Opinion

IN THE TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-11-00417-CR

SEAN REEVES, Appellant v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

From the 19th District Court McLennan County, Texas Trial Court No. 2010-1205-C1

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Sean Reeves was convicted of the offense of aggravated assault and sentenced to

20 years in prison. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 22.02 (West 2011). By letter dated

November 7, 2011, the Clerk of this Court notified Reeves that his appeal was subject to

dismissal because his notice of appeal appeared untimely and because the certification

of defendant’s right of appeal also indicated that Reeves waived his right to appeal, and

a document was included with his notice of appeal which indicated Reeves waived his

right to appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(d); 26.2(a)(1). The Clerk also warned Reeves that the Court would dismiss the appeal unless, within 21 days of the date of the letter,

a response was filed showing grounds for continuing the appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P.

44.3.

Reeves responded1 and indicated that his waiver was unknowingly made and

involuntary but did not address the timeliness of his notice of appeal. Thus, the

response does not present grounds for continuing the appeal.

Accordingly, Reeves appeal is dismissed. Further, Reeves’ motion for extension

of time to file his docketing statement and motion for court appointed counsel are

dismissed as moot.

TOM GRAY Chief Justice

Before Chief Justice Gray, Justice Davis, and Justice Scoggins Appeal dismissed Motions dismissed as moot Opinion delivered and filed November 23, 2011 Do not publish [CR25]

1 The response did not contain a proper proof of service. See TEX. R. APP. P. 9.5. However, we use Rule 2 to dispense with the service requirement and review the response Reeves provided. Id. 2.

Reeves v. State Page 2

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

Related

§ 22.02
Texas PE § 22.02

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Sean Reeves v. State, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sean-reeves-v-state-texapp-2011.