eLaws | Code of Federal Regulations | United States Code |
 All Courts
 State Courts
 Court of Appeals of Texas
 2020-03

Eric Nathaniel Reel v. State ( 2020 )


Menu:
 
  •                              Fourth Court of Appeals
San Antonio, Texas
March 18, 2020
No. 04-19-00732-CR
Eric Nathaniel REEL,
Appellant
v.
The STATE of Texas,
Appellee
From the 144th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas
Trial Court No. 2018CR11077
Honorable Ray Olivarri, Judge Presiding
ORDER
Appellant’s court-appointed attorney has filed a brief and motion to withdraw pursuant to
Anders v. California,
    386 U.S. 738 
    (1967), in which he asserts there are no meritorious issues to
raise on appeal. Counsel certifies he served copies of the brief and motion on appellant,
informed appellant of his right to review the record and file his own brief, informed appellant of
his right to seek discretionary review should the court of appeals declare the appeal frivolous,
and provided appellant with a form for requesting the record and explained to appellant the
procedure for obtaining the record. See Kelly v. State,
    436 S.W.3d 313
    , 319 (Tex. Crim. App.
2014); Nichols v. State,
    954 S.W.2d 83 
    (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1997, no pet.); Bruns v. State,
    924 S.W.2d 176
    , 177 n.1 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1996, no pet.). On March 16, 2020,
appellant filed the form motion requesting a copy of the appellate record.
After consideration, we GRANT appellant’s request for a copy of the clerk’s record and
reporter’s record. If appellant desires to file a pro se brief, we ORDER that he do so by May 4,
2020. At this time, the State has filed a notice waiving its right to file a brief in this case unless
appellant files a pro se brief. If appellant files a timely pro se brief, the State may file a
responsive brief no later than thirty days after appellant’s pro se brief is filed in this court.
We further ORDER the motion to withdraw filed by appellant’s counsel held in
abeyance pending further order of the court. See Penson v. Ohio,
    488 U.S. 75
    , 80–82 (1988)
(holding that motion to withdraw should not be ruled on before appellate court independently
reviews record to determine whether counsel’s evaluation that appeal is frivolous is sound);
Schulman v. State,
    252 S.W.3d 403
    , 410–11 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (same).
_________________________________
Beth Watkins, Justice
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said
court on this 18th day of March, 2020.
___________________________________
Michael A. Cruz,
Clerk of Court