Reginald Keith Thomas v. State ( 2019 )

IN THE
TENTH COURT OF APPEALS
No. 10-18-00175-CR
REGINALD KEITH THOMAS,
Appellant
v.
THE STATE OF TEXAS,
Appellee
From the 19th District Court
McLennan County, Texas
Trial Court No. 2014-290-C1
ORDER
Appellant has filed his third motion for an extension of time to file his response to
his counsel’s Anders brief again stating that his access to the law library where he is in
prison, and his legal knowledge, is limited. We have twice explained to appellant that
the form of a response to an Anders brief is relatively less restrictive in nature than that
which is necessary for a formal brief, and appellant’s response would be sufficient if it
directed the Court to the issues upon which appellant believed the trial court erred.
Unpersuaded by the Court’s prior orders, appellant requests an additional 60-90 days.
First, we note that this motion is not served on the parties to the appeal as required.
See TEX. R. APP. 9.5. We have allowed appellant to escape the consequence of improper
service previously and appellant has apparently now decided that no proof of service is
necessary. Proof of service may be in the form of an acknowledgement of service by the
person served or a certificate of service. TEX. R. APP. P. 9.5(d). A certificate of service
must state the name and address of each person served. Id. (e)(2). This Court and this
Court’s Clerk are not parties to this proceeding and will not serve other parties to the
proceeding with letters or pleadings. Thus, appellant is warned that any future
document not properly served will not be acted upon.
Second, because we have informed appellant that the form of a response to an
Anders brief is relatively less restrictive in nature than that which is necessary for a formal
brief, appellant’s motion for extension of time to file his brief is DENIED. Appellant’s
response to his counsel’s motion to withdraw and Anders brief in support thereof must
be filed on or before April 10, 2019. If appellant’s response is not filed by April 10, 2019,
the appeal will be disposed of without appellant’s response.
No further extensions will be considered.
PER CURIAM
Before Chief Justice Gray,
Justice Davis, and
Justice Neill
Motion denied
Order issued and filed April 3, 2019
Thomas v. State Page 2