Court Opinion

ID: 3110172
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-10-16 06:40:37.743458+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:41:53.582130
License: Public Domain

The State

                             Fourth Court of Appeals
                                    San Antonio, Texas
                                          February 5, 2014

                            No. 04-13-00783-CR and 04-13-00784-CR

                                       Christopher LANEY,
                                             Appellant

                                                  v.

                                       The STATE of Texas,
                                             Appellee

                   From the 227th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas
                       Trial Court No. 2007CR6078W and 2010CR12838
                        Honorable Philip A. Kazen, Jr., Judge Presiding

                                           ORDER

        Appellant’s court-appointed attorney has filed a brief and motion to withdraw pursuant to
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), in which he asserts there are no meritorious issues to
raise on appeal. Counsel certifies he has served copies of the brief and motion on appellant, has
informed appellant of his right to review the record and file his own brief, and has explained to
appellant the procedure for obtaining the record. See Nichols v. State, 954 S.W.2d 83 (Tex.
App.—San Antonio 1997, no pet.); Bruns v. State, 924 S.W.2d 176, 177 n.1 (Tex. App.—San
Antonio 1996, no pet.).

         If appellant desires to file a pro se brief, we order that he do so on or before March 7,
2014. If appellant files a timely pro se brief, the State may file a responsive brief no later than
thirty days after appellant’s pro se brief is filed in this court. Alternatively, if appellant does not
file a timely pro se brief, the State may file a brief in response to counsel’s brief no later than
April 7, 2014.

        We further order the motion to withdraw filed by appellant’s counsel is held in abeyance
pending further order of the court. See Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80-82, 109 S. Ct. 346, 102
L. Ed. 2d 300 (1988) (holding that a motion to withdraw should not be ruled on before appellate
court independently reviews the record to determine whether counsel’s evaluation that the appeal
is frivolous is sound); Schulman v. State, 252 S.W.3d 403, 410-11 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008)
(same).
       We further order the clerk of this court to serve a copy of this order on appellant, his
counsel, the attorney for the State, and the clerk of the trial court.

                                                   _________________________________
                                                   Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

       IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said
court on this 5th day of February, 2014.

                                                   ___________________________________
                                                   Keith E. Hottle
                                                   Clerk of Court