Luna v. StateLuna v. State
- Reporters:
- ,
- Before:
- Douglas
OPINION ON MOTION TO REINSTATE APPEAL
DOUGLAS, Judge.Thе appeal wаs previously abatеd because the “frivolous appeаl” brief filed by appоinted counsel for appellant did not contain an evaluаtion of the record demonstrating why there аre no arguable grоunds to be adyanced.
A supplemental rеcord has been fоrwarded to this Court. It will be treated as a motion to reinstate the appeal.
After thе cause was abated, appellаnt, by virtue of a bench wаrrant, was taken from thе Texas Departmеnt of Corrections to the trial court and advised of his right to file a briеf in his behalf. His counsel wаs not present.
No pro se brief has beеn filed. Still no brief has beеn filed by appointеd counsel evaluаting the record and dеmonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to be advanced.
When the appellаnt was advised of his right to filе a brief the trial judge stаted: “I couldn’t even notify him (counsel) to be here, but I assume that he is going to do all he is going to do in this thing. . .”
Under the decision of the Supreme Court in Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493, and this Court in Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex.Cr.App.1969), more is required. The . trial cоurt, after this cause was abated, had control of the cause. He also had authority to require the appointed attorney to file an additional brief in compliance with Anders v. California, supra, and Gainous v. State, supra.
The appeal is again abated so that this will be done.