Court Opinion

ID: 9367536
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-01 07:10:44.136741+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:01.458856
License: Public Domain

Order entered January 30, 2023

                                      In The
                             Court of Appeals
                      Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

                               No. 05-21-01123-CR

                     ROBERT CHAD EUBANK, Appellant

                                        V.

                       THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

               On Appeal from the 380th Judicial District Court
                            Collin County, Texas
                   Trial Court Cause No. 380-83513-2017

                                     ORDER

      Before the Court is appellant’s January 26, 2023 motion for extension of

time to file his response to counsel’s Anders brief and motion to withdraw.

Appellant’s response is due March 6, 2023. In the motion, appellant states he

requires additional time to file his response because he has not received all of the

documents related to his case from his former attorney, Heather Barbieri.

Appellant requests the time for his pro se response to the motion to withdraw and

Anders brief be extended to June 15, 2023. Appellant has not shown how any
documents from his former attorney that are not part of the appellate record may be

considered on appeal. See Leza v. State, 351 S.W.3d 344, 362 n.78 (Tex. Crim.

App. 2011) (appellate court may not consider extra-record materials). This Court

has received certification from appellant’s attorney on appeal, Lara Bracamonte

Davila, that she sent appellant a copy of the clerk’s record and reporter’s record on

November 2, 2022. Accordingly, appellant’s motion for extension of time to file

appellant’s pro se response to counsel’s motion to withdraw and Anders brief is

DENIED. Appellant’s pro se response is due MARCH 6, 2023.

      Appellant’s motion also requests that a special master be appointed to

determine whether a photograph of spandex shorts with measuring devices along

the top and left sides of the photograph had been sent to appellant’s former

attorney Kent Star and whether it was backed up to a backup device. We DENY

appellant’s request for a special master.     See Leza, 351 S.W.3d at 362 n.78

(appellate court cannot consider extra-record materials).

                                             /s/    DENNISE GARCIA
                                                    JUSTICE