Court Opinion

ID: 9352892
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-10 13:08:21.949083+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:04:47.022846
License: Public Domain

FILE COPY

                           Fourth Court of Appeals
                                  San Antonio, Texas
                                        January 5, 2023

                                     No. 04-22-00689-CR

                                   Calvin Pierre HOPKINS,
                                           Appellant

                                               v.

                                    The STATE of Texas,
                                          Appellee

                  From the 379th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas
                                Trial Court No. 2019CR10972
                           Honorable Ron Rangel, Judge Presiding

                                        ORDER
        Appellant’s brief was originally due on December 14, 2022. Appellant did not timely file
the brief or a motion for extension of time to file the brief.
       On December 16, 2022, we advised Appellant’s counsel Patrick B. Montgomery by e-
mail that the brief was overdue and inquired about its status. Counsel did not respond.
        On December 21, 2022, we ordered counsel to file a motion for extension of time, a
motion to dismiss, or the brief by January 3, 2023. We warned counsel that if no brief or motion
was filed by that date, we would abate this appeal to the trial court for an abandonment hearing
without further notice. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.8(b)(2). To date, counsel has not responded.
       We ABATE this appeal and REMAND the cause to the trial court. See TEX. R. APP. P.
38.8(b); Samaniego v. State, 952 S.W.2d 50, 52–53 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1997, no pet.).
We ORDER the trial court to conduct a hearing in compliance with Rule 38.8(b) to answer the
following questions:
       (1)    Does Appellant desire to prosecute his appeal?
       (2)    Should Patrick B. Montgomery be removed from this appeal? If so, the
              trial court must appoint new appellate counsel.
       (3)    Has appointed counsel abandoned the appeal? Because sanctions may be
              necessary, the trial court should address this issue even if new counsel is
              retained or substituted before the date of the hearing. See TEX. R. APP. P.
              38.8(b)(4).
                                                                                          FILE COPY

        The trial court, in its discretion, may receive evidence on the first question by sworn
affidavit from Appellant or by allowing Appellant to appear via electronic means (e.g., telephone
or video conference). However, the trial court shall order Patrick B. Montgomery to be
physically present at the hearing. See id. R. 38.8(b)(3).
        We FURTHER ORDER the trial court to file supplemental clerk’s and reporter’s records
in this court, not later than thirty days from the date of this order, which shall include the
following: (1) a transcription of the hearing and copies of any documentary evidence admitted,
(2) written findings of fact and conclusions of law, and (3) recommendations addressing the
above enumerated questions. See id. This court will consider the supplemental records in its
determination whether to initiate contempt proceedings against Appellant’s counsel. See id. R.
38.8(b)(4); In re Fisch, 95 S.W.3d at 732; Samaniego v. State, 952 S.W.2d at 53.
       All other appellate deadlines are suspended pending further order of this court.

                                                    _________________________________
                                                    Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

       IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said
court on this 5th day of January, 2023.

                                                    ___________________________________
                                                    MICHAEL A. CRUZ, Clerk of Court