Shaniaya Jarvis v. the State of Texas
This text of Shaniaya Jarvis v. the State of Texas (Shaniaya Jarvis v. the State of Texas) 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.
Opinion
Order entered January 9, 2023
In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05-22-00961-CR
EX PARTE SHANIAYA JARVIS
On Appeal from the 86th Judicial District Court Kaufman County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 111585-86
ORDER
Appellant is appealing the trial court’s order denying relief on her pretrial
application for writ of habeas corpus seeking a reduction in her bond. Appellant’s
brief was due on November 2, 2022. On November 4, 2022, after appellant failed
to file a timely brief, the Clerk of the Court notified appellant that the time for
filing appellant’s brief had expired and directed appellant to file the brief and an
extension motion within ten days.
On November 8, 2022, appellant’s counsel filed a motion to withdraw the
appeal signed only by counsel. By order entered November 15, 2022, the Court
denied the motion to dismiss for noncompliance with rule 42.2(a). See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.2(a) (requiring both counsel and the appellant to sign a motion to dismiss an
appeal). The Court ordered appellant to file an amended motion to dismiss, signed
by both counsel and appellant, within fourteen days of the date of the order. To
date, appellant has neither filed an amended motion nor communicated with the
Court.
We ORDER the trial court to conduct a hearing to determine the status of
this appeal. The trial court shall make appropriate findings and recommendations
and determine whether subsequent developments in the case have rendered the
appeal moot, whether appellant desires to prosecute the appeal, why appellant’s
brief has not been filed, whether appellant is indigent, or if not indigent, whether
retained counsel 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.
–2– This appeal is ABATED to allow the trial court to comply with the above
order. The appeal shall be reinstated when the findings are received or at such
other time as the Court deems appropriate.
We DIRECT the Clerk to transmit a copy of this order to the Honorable
Casey Blair, Presiding Judge, 86th Judicial District Court; and to counsel for the
parties.
/s/ BONNIE LEE GOLDSTEIN JUSTICE
–3–
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Shaniaya Jarvis v. the State of Texas, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/shaniaya-jarvis-v-the-state-of-texas-texapp-2023.