Court Opinion

ID: 3078314
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-10-16 01:33:37.429399+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T10:57:53.178889
License: Public Domain

In The

                                 Court of Appeals
                     Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont
                            ____________________
                               NO. 09-12-00443-CR
                               NO. 09-12-00444-CR
                               NO. 09-12-00445-CR
                            ____________________

                      DAVID JOSEPH BLUNT, Appellant

                                          V.

                       THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
_______________________________________________________              ______________

                   On Appeal from the 9th District Court
                        Montgomery County, Texas
   Trial Cause Nos. 11-10-11503 CR, 11-11-12306 CR, and 11-12-12832 CR
________________________________________________________              _____________

                                      ORDER

      On January 28, 2013, appellant’s appointed counsel filed a motion to withdraw

and a brief which urges this Court to review these appeals pursuant to Anders v.

California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967). See In re Schulman,

252 S.W.3d 403, 408-09 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008). Counsel certified service of the motion

to withdraw and the brief on the appellant. Counsel states he provided appellant with a

                                          1
copy of the clerk’s records and the reporter’s records and notified appellant of his right to

review the records and file a pro se brief. 1

       It is, therefore, ORDERED that appellant, David Joseph Blunt, be given 60 days

from the date hereof to file a pro se brief. It is, further, ORDERED that the State may

file a reply brief, due 30 days from the date appellant files his brief, or if no brief is filed

by appellant, 70 days from the date hereof.

       ORDER ENTERED February 7, 2013.

                                                                        PER CURIAM

Before Gaultney, Kreger, and Horton, JJ.

       1
        At or before the conclusion of the appeals, counsel must advise appellant of his
right to seek discretionary review. See In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 408 n.22 (Tex.
Crim. App. 2008); Tex. R. App. P. 68.
                                                2