Taylor Eugene Kregear v. the State of Texas

Court of Appeals of Texas

Taylor Eugene Kregear v. the State of Texas

DecidedJanuary 9, 2023

Docket04-22-00671-CR

StatusPublished

This text of Taylor Eugene Kregear v. the State of Texas (Taylor Eugene Kregear 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.

Bluebook

Taylor Eugene Kregear v. the State of Texas, (Tex. Ct. App. 2023).

Pincite

Opinion

Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas January 9, 2023

No. 04-22-00671-CR

Taylor Eugene KREGEAR, Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas, Appellee

From the 25th Judicial District Court, Guadalupe County, Texas Trial Court No. 14-2572-CR-C Honorable Jessica Crawford, Judge Presiding

ORDER Appellant’s court-appointed attorney has filed a brief and motion to withdraw pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), in which he asserts there are no meritorious issues to raise on appeal. Counsel certifies he served copies of the brief and motion on appellant, informed appellant of his right to review the record and file his own brief, informed appellant of his right to seek discretionary review should the court of appeals declare the appeal frivolous, and provided appellant with a form for requesting the record and explained to appellant the procedure for obtaining the record. See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014); Nichols v. State, 954 S.W.2d 83 (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.). As of the date of this order, appellant has not filed the record-request motion provided to him by his counsel.

If appellant desires to file a pro se brief, we ORDER that he do so by February 8, 2023. If appellant files a timely pro se brief, the State may file a responsive brief no later than thirty days after appellant’s pro se brief is filed in this court.

We further ORDER the motion to withdraw filed by appellant’s counsel held in abeyance pending further order of the court. See Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80–82 (1988) (holding that motion to withdraw should not be ruled on before appellate court independently reviews record to determine whether counsel’s evaluation that appeal is frivolous is sound); Schulman v. State, 252 S.W.3d 403, 410–11 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (same).

Entered on this 9th day of January 2023. PER CURIAM

Attested to: ________________________________ MICHAEL A. CRUZ, Clerk of Court

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

Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas January 9, 2023

No. 04-22-00671-CR

Taylor Eugene KREGEAR, Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas, Appellee

From the 25th Judicial District Court, Guadalupe County, Texas Trial Court No. 14-2572-CR-C Honorable Jessica Crawford, Judge Presiding

ORDER Appellant’s court-appointed attorney has filed a brief and motion to withdraw pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), in which he asserts there are no meritorious issues to raise on appeal. Counsel certifies he served copies of the brief and motion on appellant, informed appellant of his right to review the record and file his own brief, informed appellant of his right to seek discretionary review should the court of appeals declare the appeal frivolous, and provided appellant with a form for requesting the record and explained to appellant the procedure for obtaining the record. See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014); Nichols v. State, 954 S.W.2d 83 (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.). As of the date of this order, appellant has not filed the record-request motion provided to him by his counsel.

If appellant desires to file a pro se brief, we ORDER that he do so by February 8, 2023. If appellant files a timely pro se brief, the State may file a responsive brief no later than thirty days after appellant’s pro se brief is filed in this court.

We further ORDER the motion to withdraw filed by appellant’s counsel held in abeyance pending further order of the court. See Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80–82 (1988) (holding that motion to withdraw should not be ruled on before appellate court independently reviews record to determine whether counsel’s evaluation that appeal is frivolous is sound); Schulman v. State, 252 S.W.3d 403, 410–11 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (same).

Entered on this 9th day of January 2023. PER CURIAM

Attested to: ________________________________ MICHAEL A. CRUZ, Clerk of Court

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Taylor Eugene Kregear v. the State of Texas, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/taylor-eugene-kregear-v-the-state-of-texas-texapp-2023.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack