Order entered Se ptember 29 , 2020

In The 

### Court of Appeals **Fifth District of Texas at Dallas**
No. 05
- 19
- 01282
- CR MARQUIS K . JONES, Appellant
V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 283rd Ju dicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. F15
- 54782
- T
ORDER Following a hearing, appellant’s community supervision was revoked, and he was adjudicated guilty of possession with intent to manufacture and/or deliver heroin in an amo unt of more than four grams but less than 200 grams. The judgment, entered on September 13, 2019 , reflects that appellant was sentenced to twenty years in prison. Appellant filed a pro se notice of appeal that we determined was timely. We abated the app eal for the trial court to determine if appellant was entitled to court

-appointed counsel, and if so, to appoint such counsel. Counsel was appointed on December 9, 2019. In his sole issue, appellant contends that he was denied his right to counsel unde r t he Sixth Amendment during the critical 30

- day period for filing a motion for new trial and requests an abatement so he can file an out

- of

- time motion for new trial.
I. A NALYSIS The Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees a cri min al defendant the right to have counsel present at all “critical” stages of his criminal proceedings. Montejo v. Louisiana , 556 U.S. 778, 786 (2009) (citing United States v. Wade , 388 U.S. 218, 227

– 228 (1967), and Powell v. Alabama , 287 U.S. 45, 57 (193 2)) ; see U.S. Const. amend. VI (“In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right . . . to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.”). One such critical stage is the 30

- day period for filing a motion for new trial. Cooks v. State , 24 0 S .W.3d 906, 911 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007); see T EX
. R.
A PP
. P. 21.4(a) (defendant has 30 days after trial court “imposes or suspends sentence in open court” to file motion for new trial). If a defendant is deprived of counsel during this stage of his prose cut ion, then the defendant’s constitutional rights are violated. Cooks , 240 S.W.3d at 911.Giving appellant the benefit of any doubt, w e conclude appellant has rebutted the presumption of continued representation and shown that he was deprived of counsel fo r the entire period f or filing a motion for new trial. See Carnell v. State , 535 S.W.3d 569, 572. (Tex. App.

— Houston [1st Dist. 2017, no pet.). Because appellant was deprived of counsel for the entire period, we presume that he was harmed. 1 See id. We therefore hold that appellant is entitled to an abatement of this appeal to file a motion for new trial. See id. at 373

– 74 & n.5.
II. C ONCLUSION Having sustained appellant’s issue, we do not render judgment or order the clerk to issue a mandate at th is time, but rather b y this order, remand the case to the trial court for the limited purpose of allowing (1) appellant the opportunity to file and present a motion for new trial, (2) the trial court the opportunity to rule on such a motion, and (3) the tr ial court clerk and c ourt reporter to supplement the appellate record. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P . 43.6, 44.4; Carnell , 535 S.W.3d at 573

– 74 & n.5. Specifically, we remand the case to the trial court at the point where appellant’s sentence was imposed ; the 30

- da y timetable for any m otion for new trial shall begin running anew on the date this order is received by the trial court

. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P . 21.4(a), Carnell , 535 S.W.3d at 573

– 74 & n.5.

1 Because we presume har m, we nee d not address appella nt’s alternative argument that there are facially plausible issues to be raised in a motion for ne w trial. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 47.1.If appellant files a motion for new trial and the trial court ove rru les or grants any mot ion for new trial or if the motion is deemed denied as a matter of law , then , within THIRTY DAYS of the date the motion is denied (by written order or by operation of law), (1) the district clerk is ORDERED to file a supplemental c ler k’s record containing appellant’s motion for new trial and any written order, and (2) the court reporter is ORDERED to file a supplemental reporter’s record of the hearing , if any, on the motion for new trial. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P . 21.8, 33.1, 34.5(c),
3 4.6 (d); Carnell , 535 S.W .3d at 574 n.5. If appellant fails to file a motion for new trial within THIRTY DAYS of the date the trial court receives th is order, the trial court shall notify this Court of that fact

. We further ORDER the trial court to send w rit ten verification to C ourt confirming the date of receipt of this order. Cf. T EX
. R. A PP
. P . 51.2(a)(1).
We DIRECT the Clerk to send copies of this order to the Honorable Lela D. Mays, Presiding Judge, 283rd Judicial District Court ; to Vearneas Faggett, of ficial court reporter , 283rd Judicial District Court; to Felicia Pitre, Dallas County District Clerk; Catherine Ber nhard ; and the Dallas County District Attorney’s Office, Appellate Division.
We ABATE this appeal for the trial court to comply with the C ourt’s or der. The appeal will be reinstated after the supplemental clerk’s record andsupplemental reporter’s record, if any, are filed or when the Court deems it necessary or appropriate to do so

.

/s/ BILL WHITEHILL JUSTICE