Court Opinion

ID: 9353178
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-11 08:09:40.424741+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:08:13.466086
License: Public Domain

Order entered January 9, 2023

                                      In The
                             Court of Appeals
                      Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

                               No. 05-22-00961-CR

                       EX PARTE SHANIAYA JARVIS

                On Appeal from the 86th Judicial District Court
                           Kaufman County, Texas
                      Trial Court Cause No. 111585-86

                                     ORDER

      Appellant is appealing the trial court’s order denying relief on her pretrial

application for writ of habeas corpus seeking a reduction in her bond. Appellant’s

brief was due on November 2, 2022. On November 4, 2022, after appellant failed

to file a timely brief, the Clerk of the Court notified appellant that the time for

filing appellant’s brief had expired and directed appellant to file the brief and an

extension motion within ten days.

      On November 8, 2022, appellant’s counsel filed a motion to withdraw the

appeal signed only by counsel. By order entered November 15, 2022, the Court

denied the motion to dismiss for noncompliance with rule 42.2(a). See TEX. R. APP.
P. 42.2(a) (requiring both counsel and the appellant to sign a motion to dismiss an

appeal). The Court ordered appellant to file an amended motion to dismiss, signed

by both counsel and appellant, within fourteen days of the date of the order. To

date, appellant has neither filed an amended motion nor communicated with the

Court.

         We ORDER the trial court to conduct a hearing to determine the status of

this appeal. The trial court shall make appropriate findings and recommendations

and determine whether subsequent developments in the case have rendered the

appeal moot, whether appellant desires to prosecute the appeal, why appellant’s

brief has not been filed, whether appellant is indigent, or if not indigent, whether

retained counsel has abandoned the appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.8(b). If the trial

court cannot obtain appellant’s presence at the hearing, the trial court shall conduct

the hearing in appellant’s absence. See Meza v. State, 742 S.W.2d 708 (Tex. App.–

Corpus Christi 1987, no pet.) (per curiam). If appellant is indigent, the trial court is

ORDERED to take such measures as may be necessary to assure effective

representation, which may include appointment of new counsel.

         We ORDER the trial court to transmit a record of the proceedings, which

shall include written findings and recommendations, to this Court within THIRTY

DAYS of the date of this order.

                                          –2–
       This appeal is ABATED to allow the trial court to comply with the above

order. The appeal shall be reinstated when the findings are received or at such

other time as the Court deems appropriate.

       We DIRECT the Clerk to transmit a copy of this order to the Honorable

Casey Blair, Presiding Judge, 86th Judicial District Court; and to counsel for the

parties.

                                             /s/   BONNIE LEE GOLDSTEIN
                                                   JUSTICE

                                       –3–