Shauna Denay Ripley v. State

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedApril 8, 2016
Docket04-15-00294-CR
StatusPublished

This text of Shauna Denay Ripley v. State (Shauna Denay Ripley 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
Shauna Denay Ripley v. State, (Tex. Ct. App. 2016).

Opinion

Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas April 8, 2016

No. 04-15-00294-CR

Shauna Denay RIPLEY, Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas, Appellee

From the 437th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 2013CR0670 Honorable Lori I. Valenzuela, Judge Presiding

ORDER

After Appellant’s second court-appointed counsel missed deadlines to file the brief, we abated this appeal and remanded it to the trial court for an abandonment hearing. The trial court held a hearing as ordered; it filed a supplemental clerk’s record containing findings of fact and conclusions of law. The court reporter filed a supplemental reporter’s record of the hearing. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.8(b)(3).

The trial court found that (1) Appellant wishes to prosecute her appeal, (2) Appellant is indigent, and (3) court-appointed appellate attorney Michael Raign will continue to represent Appellant in this appeal. At the hearing, Mr. Raign indicated he would file the brief by Monday, April 4, 2016. We reinstated the appellate timetable in this appeal, set Appellant’s brief due on April 4, 2016, and ordered Appellant’s court-appointed counsel Michael Raign to file Appellant’s brief by April 4, 2016. As of this date, counsel has not filed the brief.

We ORDER Appellant’s attorney to file either Appellant’s brief or a motion to dismiss this appeal within FIVE DAYS of the date of this order. If no brief or motion is filed by that date, we will abate this appeal to the trial court for a second abandonment hearing and again order Michael Raign to appear before the trial court to determine, inter alia, whether to appoint substitute counsel. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.8(b)(2).

Appellant’s attorney is cautioned that, to protect Appellant’s rights, this court may “initiat[e] contempt proceedings against [A]ppellant’s counsel.” Id. R. 38.8(b)(4). _________________________________ Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said court on this 8th day of April, 2016.

___________________________________ Keith E. Hottle Clerk of Court

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Shauna Denay Ripley v. State, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/shauna-denay-ripley-v-state-texapp-2016.