Thomas, Kenneth Dewayne

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedApril 15, 2015
DocketAP-77,047
StatusPublished

This text of Thomas, Kenneth Dewayne (Thomas, Kenneth Dewayne) 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
Thomas, Kenneth Dewayne, (Tex. Ct. App. 2015).

Opinion

AP-77,047 ™hD™™^, ,nDC, e COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS • COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS a,,«t-hi -rr-^*r> AUSTIN, TEXAS April H, 2015 Transmitted 4/13/2015 3:48:05 PM

ABEL ACOSTA, CLERK Accepted 4/14/2015 10:26:09 AM

NO. AP-77,047 ABELAc?eSrk KENNETH THOMAS () IN THE COURT OF

VS. () CRIMINAL APPEALS

MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE BRIEF ^ t TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT:

NOW COMES Appellant in the above-styled and numbered cause, and,

pursuant to Rule 38.6 and Rule 10.5(b) Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure,

submits this Motion requesting that the Appellant be granted additional time

in which to file the brief in the above-styled and numbered cause, and in

support of same would show the Court the following:

I.

(a) Trial Court Designation: 194™ Judicial District Court Cause Number: F86-85539-M (b) Offense: Capital Murder Punishment: Death (c) Date of extension sought for May 29th, 2015 brief: (f) Number of prior extensions: 1 (g) Facts relied upon to support extension:

Appellant's counsel requests the additional time to complete this death

penalty appellate brief. The brief is currently 75% completed. The testimony

has been summarized for the initial draft of the brief. All possible issues have

been identified. There is still required legal research needed to determine the issues that are viable for presentation. In particular this case presents unusual

issues concerning a jury trial on competency that was conducted during the

retrial of the punishment issues involved in this case and the case of Hall v.

Florida was handed down by the Supreme Court of the United States

concerning intellectual disability as applied in death penalty cases. This

Supreme Court case affected the individual voir dire procedure and charge to

the jury as a special issue of intellectual disability that was submitted to the

jury. Appellant's counsel is doing extensive research to present these issues

concerning intellectual disability with the most up to date legal discussion

possible in the brief for Appellant. Appellant's counsel requests additional

time to complete research of possible points of error and final draft of brief to

be submitted on behalf of Appellant. Counsel has spoken to the State's

assistant district attorney, Ms. Christine Womble and she has no objection to

this extension of time. Counsel does not believe any additional time past that

requested herein will be necessary to complete Appellant's brief for filing.

II.

The Appellant has been diligent in pursuing this appeal and is not

seeking this extension for purposes of delay. WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Appellant prays that this

Motion be granted.

Respectfully submitted,

/si John Tatum John Tatum 990 S. Sherman Street Richardson, Texas 70581 (972) 705-9200 Fax #: (972) 690-9901 State Bar No. 19672500

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a copy of this Motion has been delivered to Susan

Hawk, Dallas County District Attorney, or to her Assistant District Attorney in

the Appellate Section assigned to this case, at 133 North Riverfront, 11th

floor, Frank Crowley Criminal Courts Building, Dallas, Texas 75207, on this

the 13th day of April 13,2015.

/s/ John Tatum John Tatum CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE

Icertify that this submitted e-mail attachment to file Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief complies with the following requirements of the Court:

1.The petition is submitted by e-mail attachment;

2. The e-mail attachment is labeled with the following information:

A. Case Name: Kenneth Thomas B. The Appellate Case Number: 77,047 C. The Type of Document: Motion to Extend Time D. Party for whom the document is being submitted: Appellant E. The Word Processing Software and Version Used to Prepare the Motion : Word Perfect X7

3. Copies have been sent to all parties associated with this case.

/s/ John Tatum 4/13/15 (Signature of filing party and date)

John Tatum (Printed name)

John Tatum, Attorney at Law

Emailed Copy of Motion

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Thomas, Kenneth Dewayne, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/thomas-kenneth-dewayne-texapp-2015.