Court Opinion

ID: 9372246
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-20 08:08:32.990115+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:33.984743
License: Public Domain

COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE
                                FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

                                                     ORDER

Appellate case name:          Christopher Michael Pelletier v. The State of Texas

Appellate case number:        01-21-00425-CR, 01-21-00430-CR

Trial court case number: 20CR1225, 21CR1166

Trial court:                  10th District Court of Galveston County

        Appellant, previously represented by appointed counsel, filed notices of appeal of the trial
court’s July 2, 2021 judgments of conviction. The clerk’s record was filed on September 21, 2021,
and the reporter’s record was filed on October 18, 2021. Appellant’s previously-appointed counsel
filed an Anders brief on December 17, 2021, concluding that the above-referenced appeals were
without merit and frivolous. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967).
         On May 23, 2022, appellant, in correspondence to this Court, advised this Court that he
wanted to proceed pro se in his appeals, which we construed as a motion to proceed pro se. On
June 2, 2022, this Court abated the appeals and remanded the cases to the trial court so that the
trial court could conduct a hearing on appellant’s motion to proceed pro se.1 On June 15, 2022,
the trial court conducted a hearing, determined that appellant “underst[ood] what [he was] doing
and [was] capable of proceeding” pro se, and discharged appellant’s previously-appointed counsel.
The trial court made findings of fact that, among other things, indicated that appellant understood
the dangers of proceeding pro se on appeal. On July 7, 2022, this Court reinstated appellant’s
appeal, struck the Anders brief filed by appellant’s previously-appointed counsel, and ordered that
appellant, now proceeding pro se, file his appellant’s brief by August 8, 2022.
        On August 3, 2022, appellant filed a motion for extension to file his appellant’s brief, which
we granted in part, ordering that appellant file his appellant’s brief by October 7, 2022. Appellant
did not file an appellant’s brief.
        On October 18, 2022, this Court notified appellant that his appellant’s brief had not been
timely filed and he must file a motion for an extension for time along with his appellant’s brief or

1
       On June 2, 2022, this Court also ordered that the trial court clerk provide a copy of the appellate record,
       including the clerk’s record, the reporter’s record, and any supplemental records, to appellant. On June 28,
       2022, a supplemental clerk’s record was filed in this Court, indicating that the appellate record was delivered
       to the unit where appellant is incarcerated on June 22, 2022.
a motion for extension of time to file his appellant’s brief within ten days of the Court’s notice.
On October 25, 2022, appellant filed a motion for extension of time to file his appellant’s brief,
which we granted, ordering that appellant file his appellant’s brief by November 15, 2022.
Appellant did not file his appellant’s brief.
        On January 10, 2023, this Court notified appellant that his appellant’s brief was due within
thirty days and if his brief was not filed, the appeals would be submitted without briefs. Appellant
did not file his appellant’s brief.
        Accordingly, we will consider appellant’s appeals without briefs and review the record for
fundamental error. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.8(b)(4); Lott v. State, 874 S.W.2d 687, 688 n.2 (Tex.
Crim. App. 1994); Burton v. State, 267 S.W.3d 101, 103 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi–Edinburg
2008, no pet.); see also Seay v. State, Nos. 05-18-00362-CR to 05-18-00364-CR, 2019 WL
3886652, at *1–2 (Tex. App.—Dallas Aug. 19, 2019, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for
publication) (submitting case without briefs and reviewing record for fundamental error where
appellant, who was initially represented by appointed appellate counsel, failed to file appellant’s
brief after filing motion to proceed pro se and after trial court had held hearing and found appellant
wanted to represent himself, had made waiver of counsel competently, voluntarily, knowingly,
and intelligently, had been admonished of dangers and disadvantages of self-representation, and
was capable of representing himself in manner that would not harm interests of himself and State).
This case is now at issue and may be set for submission at any time.
       It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature:   _____/s/ Julie Countiss_________
                        Acting individually      Acting for the Court

Date: February 16, 2023