O rder filed June 27 , 2013



### In The 

# Eleventh Court of Appeals

__________ No. 11

- 1 1

- 00 283

- CR

__________ JOE LOUIS TIENDA , Appellant

V.

THE S TATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

On Appeal from the 42 8th District Court Hays County, Texas
Tri al Court Cause No. 07

- 802

O R D E R
T h is appeal has been unduly stalled due to the failure of A ppellant’s appointed counsel, Michael Packard , to file an appellate brief. The brief was originally due on November 19
, 201 2

. On December 19
, the court on its own motion granted an extension until January 3, 2013. On May 9, 2013, after four months had passed with no communication from Packard , this court issued an2 order directing Packard to file in this court a brief on behalf of Appellant on or before May 24, 2013. Instead, on May 24, 2013, Packard filed a motion for
extension of time to file A ppella nt’s brief in which counsel questioned his competency to represent Appellant due to a change in counsel’s practice area a nd a language barrier

. We overruled the motion for extension of time filed by Packard.
O n June 17, 2013, this court received from E. Chevo Pastrano a motion to

exten d the time to file Appellant’s brief . In the motion, Pastrano asserts that he was appoi nted by the trial court on June 6, 2013, to represent Appellant. Attached

to Pastrano’s motion a re copies of the following documents: Packard’s June 5,
2013 motion to withdraw as counsel ; an order signed by the trial court on June 6, 2013, granting Packar d’s motion to withdraw ; and an order signed by the trial court on June 7, 2013, appointing Pastrano to represent Appellant in this appeal.
We note that Packard did not file in this court a motion to withdraw. See T EX

. R.
A PP

. P. 6.5.
Pursuant to T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 25.2(g), when the record is filed in an appellate
court, “ all further proceedings in the trial court

— except as provided otherwise by law or by these rules

— will be suspended” until the appellate court’s mandate is received. In light of the circ umstances surrounding this appeal, including
Packard’s desire to withdraw
, his asserted lack of competency
, and the trial court’s entry of two orders after the record was filed in this case when it had no jurisdiction to do so, we abate the appeal.
We ab ate the appeal and remand the cause to the trial court so that it may, in proper format, determine the following:
1. Whether Tienda desires to prosecute his appeal;
2. Whether Tienda is indigent; and
3. If indigent, w hether appointed counsel, Michael Packard, sho uld be removed as appellate counsel and new counsel appointed

.3 See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 38.8(b). The trial court is directed to make appropriate findings and recommendations and to appoint new appellate counsel , such as Pastrano, if appropriate. The trial cou rt clerk is directed to prepare and forward to this court a supplemental clerk’s record containing the findings, recommendations, and any orders of the trial court. If a hearing is held, the court reporter is directed to prepare and forward to this court the reporter’s record from the hearing. These
records are due to be filed in this court on or before July 29 , 2013. Appellant ’s brief will be due to be filed in this court within thirty days after the date this appeal
is reinstated. The appeal is abated.

PER CURIAM

June 27 , 2013 Do not publish. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 47.2(b).
Panel consists of: Wright, C.J., McCall, J., and Willson , J.