# Fourth Court of Appeals
**San Antonio, Texas**

Augus t 15, 2018

No. 04

- 16

- 00630

- CR & 04

- 16

- 00631

- CR

Cody Lon SMITH

, Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas, Appellee

From the 198th Judicial District Court, Kerr County, Texas
Trial Court No. B

- 07

- 057 & B

- 15

- 631 Honorable Rex Emerson, Judge Presiding



### ORDER

Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice Irene Rios, Justice

Appellant has fil ed a motion to re

- brief these consolidated appeals

. The only ground
asserted in the motion is that an appellant may re

- brief an appeal when the case is on remand
from the Cour t of Criminal Appeals

. See Muniz v. State , 865 S.W.2d 513, 514 (Tex. App.

— San Antonio 1993, pet. ref’ d)

. The motion states

, without explanation or authority, that the se appeals
are on remand from the Court of Criminal Appeals

. Appellant states that if this court does not grant his motion , he “ will be forced to file another Mandamus .” We disagree with appellant’s assertion that the appeals are on “remand” from the Court of Criminal Appeals

. These consolidated appeals have been pending in this court since September 29, 2016. N o judgment of this court has been entered or appealed to the Court of Criminal Appeals. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 78.1(d), (f) , 78.2 (authorizing the Court of Criminal Appeals to remand a case to the court of appeals only when re versing a court of appeals judgment). The Court of Criminal Appeals stayed these appeals while appellant’s counsel pursued a petition for writ of mandamus

. But, counsel filed the mandamus petition in her personal capacity. N either the State nor appellant w as a party to that original proceeding. See generally In re Moore , WR

- 87,158

- 01, 2018 WL 2716699 (Tex. Crim. App. June 6, 2018) (not designated for publication) (stating appellant’s counsel was the “relator”); see also T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 3.1(f) (defining “relator” as “ a person seeking relief in an original proceeding in an appellatecourt ”). Therefore

, because appellant’s argument is without merit, the motion is DENIED

. See Muniz , 865 S.W.2d at 514

. However, in the interest of justice, we consider on our own motion whether to permit appellant to re

- brief these appeals under Texas R ule of Appellate Procedure 38.7. See T EX

. R.
A PP

. P. 38.7. Rule 38.7 provides, “ A brief may be amended

. . . whenever justice requi res, on whatever reasonable terms the court may prescribe. ” Id. Generally , justice requires that we avoid unnecessary delays without prejudicing the right s of parties before this court

. Although these appeals have been pending for nearly two years, a ppellant’s motion suggests his constitution al right to effective assistance of counsel could be prejudiced by a deficient brief filed by appellate counsel. In the motion, appellant asserts his counsel filed the original appellant’s brief under “stress and duress.” Appellant also asserts “[his] rights to Due Process and his right to effective assistance of counsel” require re

- briefing. On our own motion, i n order to protect appellant’s right to effective assistance of counsel, we will permit appellant to fi le an amended brief. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 38.7. Therefore, w e ORDER counsel for appellant, Angela Moore, to file an amended appellant’s brief that complies with the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure by September 14, 2018 . No extensions of time will be granted. If appellant’s ame nded brief is not timely filed or, if the brief is defective : (1) appellant is notified that this court retains discretion to strike an unt imely amended appellant’s brief, and (2) appellant’s counsel will be ordered to appear before this court and show cause why she should not be held in criminal contempt and civil contempt of this court

. We ORDER the State’s brief is due by October 15, 2018 , regardless of whether appellant files an amended appellant’s brief. Because this court has granted the State two prior extensions, the State is advised that no further extensions of time will be granted absent a timely
motion that : (1) demonstrates extra ordinary circumstances justifying further delay, (2) advises
the court of the efforts the State has expended in preparing the brief, and (3) provides the court reasonable assurance that the brief will be completed and filed by the requested extended
deadli ne. The court does not generally consider a heavy work schedule to be an extraordinary
circumstance. If such a motion for an extension of time, or the State’s brief, is not timely filed, this Court may decide these appeal s without a State’s brief.

Entered on this 15 th day of August , 2018.



### PER CURIAM

ATTESTED TO :

____________________________ Keith E. Hottle

, Clerk of Court