Theus v. State
| Decision Date | 20 October 1993 |
| Docket Number | 972-93,Nos. 971-93,s. 971-93 |
| Citation | 863 S.W.2d 489 |
| Parties | Joe Louis THEUS, Appellant v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
DeEdward J. Greer, Houston, for appellant.
John B. Holmes, Jr., Dist. Atty., Linda A. West & Elsa Alcala, Asst. Dist. Attys., Houston, Robert Huttash, State's Atty., Austin, for the State.
Before the court en banc.
OPINION ON APPELLANT'S PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW
Appellant was convicted by a jury of possession and delivery of less than twenty-eight grams of cocaine, enhanced by proof of one prior conviction, and sentenced by the court to concurrent thirty-five and twenty-five year terms of confinement. The Court of Appeals affirmed. Theus v. State, 816 S.W.2d 773 (Tex.App.--Houston [14th] 1991). We reversed the conviction because of the erroneous introduction of a prior arson conviction during the guilt or innocence phase of trial, and remanded the case to the Court of Appeals for a harm analysis pursuant to Tex.R.App.Pro. 81(b)(2). Theus v. State, 845 S.W.2d 874 (Tex.Cr.App.1992). On remand, the Court of Appeals found the error harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Theus v. State, 858 S.W.2d 25 (Tex.App.--Houston [14th] 1993). Appellant is once again before this Court.
In his third ground for review, appellant complains the Court of Appeals erred in failing to afford him the opportunity to file a brief after remand. He states that no notice was sent informing him of his right to file a brief, nor did the Court of Appeals inquire why none was filed. Tex.R.App.Pro. 74(l )(2). 1 The record supports this contention.
This Court has previously held that an indigent appellant is entitled to the assistance of appointed counsel in filing a brief on remand from this Court. Robinson v. State, 790 S.W.2d 334 (Tex.Cr.App.1990); Williams v. State, 790 S.W.2d 336 (Tex.Cr.App.1990). Although the Rules of Appellate Procedure do not specifically address procedures in the courts of appeals after remand, we opined that, because an appellant stands in the same position as he did when the initial appeal was filed, the appellate rules apply just as though the appeal were on original submission. Robinson, supra at 335; Williams, supra at 338.
In the instant case, as in Robinson and Williams, the return of the record to the appellate court was equivalent to the filing of the transcript and statement of facts, giving counsel thirty days in which to file a brief on appellant's behalf. Tex.R.App.Pro. 74(k). When no brief had been timely filed, the Court of Appeals was obligated to inquire as to the reason for that omission. Tex.R.App.Pro. 74(l )(2). In the absence of any brief by counsel or inquiry by the appellate court it must be presumed that appellant was not represented by counsel. 2
Therefore, appellant's third ground for review is summarily granted. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is vacated, and the case is once again remanded to that court in order that appellant may file a brief after remand. Appellant's first and second grounds for review are dismissed without prejudice.
1 Rule 74(l ) provides in pertinent part:
(2) Criminal Cases. In criminal cases, appellant's failure to file a brief in the time prescribed shall not authorize dismissal of the appeal or, except as herein provided, consideration of the appeal without briefs. When the appellant's brief has not been filed within such time, the clerk of the appellate court shall notify counsel for the parties and the trial judge that appellant's brief has...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Brabson
...not raised in brief before Court of Appeals and not urged in petition for discretionary review before this Court); Theus v. State, 863 S.W.2d 489, 491 (Tex.Crim.App.1993)(on remand by Court of Criminal Appeals to Court of Appeals for harm analysis, Court of Appeals is required to afford def......
-
Sanchez v. State
...or extortion. Id. Upon the first remand to this Court, the parties were allowed to rebrief the case as required by Theus v. State, 863 S.W.2d 489, 491 (Tex.Crim.App.1993). This Court sustained two of appellant's points of error — that the trial court erred in overruling appellant's pretrial......
-
Sanchez v. State
...in light of the procedure normally utilized, the parties were granted leave by this Court to rebrief the case. See Theus v. State, 863 S.W.2d 489, 491 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993). POINTS OF In his brief following remand, appellant raises six points of error. First, appellant contends that the tr......
-
Sanders v. State
...that neither the rules of appellate procedure nor case law permit the raising of new points of error on remand. See Theus v. State, 863 S.W.2d 489, 491 (Tex.Crim.App.1993) (holding that remand from Texas Court of Criminal Appeals was equivalent to filing transcript and statement of facts, t......