Thomas Paul Tadsen v. State

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedJanuary 6, 2016
Docket02-15-00261-CR
StatusPublished

This text of Thomas Paul Tadsen v. State (Thomas Paul Tadsen 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
Thomas Paul Tadsen v. State, (Tex. Ct. App. 2016).

Opinion

FILE COPY

COURT OF APPEALS SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH

NO. 02-15-00260-CR NO. 02-15-00261-CR

THOMAS PAUL TADSEN APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE

------------

FROM THE 396TH DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY TRIAL COURT NO. 1378634R, 1379351R

ABATEMENT ORDER

It has come to our attention that appellant's brief has not been filed.

Appellant’s brief was originally due on December 2, 2016. We have notified the

trial court judge and the attorneys of record that appellant's brief has not been

filed, as required by rule 38.8(b). See Tex. R. App. P. 38.8(b). Because we have

not received a satisfactory response to our prior notification and in accordance

with rule 38.8(b), we abate the appeal and remand this case to the trial court. FILE COPY

The trial court shall conduct a hearing, with appellant and appointed

counsel, John W. Stickels, present. At the hearing, the court shall make the

following findings on the record:

1. Determine whether appellant desires to prosecute the appeal;

2. Determine why appointed counsel has not filed a brief and whether counsel has abandoned the appeal;

3. If appointed counsel has not abandoned the appeal and appellant desires to continue the appeal, determine the exact date that counsel will file a brief on appellant’s behalf in the court of appeals;

4. Determine whether substitute counsel should be appointed to represent appellant and appoint substitute counsel, if necessary;1

5. Determine whether appellant desires to proceed pro se. If so, admonish appellant of the dangers and disadvantages of self- representation in accordance with Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806, 835, 95 S. Ct. 2525, 2541 (1975) and Hubbard v. State, 739 S.W.2d 341, 345 (Tex. Crim. App. 1987) and determine whether appellant’s decision to proceed pro se is competently and intelligently made; and

6. Take any other measures that the trial court deems necessary to insure appellant does not forfeit his right to appeal.

The trial court shall file a record of the hearing in this court on or before

Friday, February 5, 2016. The record shall include a supplemental reporter's

record and supplemental clerk's record. Upon our receipt of the supplemental

1If substitute counsel has been appointed to represent appellant, the supplemental record shall reflect that substitute counsel has been notified of the appointment. If appellant is incarcerated, the trial court shall also retain him in the county for a reasonable period of time to allow substitute counsel an opportunity to confer with appellant.

2 FILE COPY

record, the appeal of this cause shall be reinstated automatically without further

order.

The clerk of this court shall transmit a copy of this order to the attorneys of

record, the trial court judge, the trial court clerk, and the court reporter.

DATED January 6, 2016.

PER CURIAM

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

Related

Faretta v. California
422 U.S. 806 (Supreme Court, 1975)
Hubbard v. State
739 S.W.2d 341 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1987)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Thomas Paul Tadsen v. State, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/thomas-paul-tadsen-v-state-texapp-2016.