IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
AT AMARILLO
PANEL E
MARCH 5, 2004
______________________________
IN RE STATE OF TEXAS, RELATOR
_______________________________
Before JOHNSON, C.J., and REAVIS, JJ. and BOYD, S.J. (1)
ORDER ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUSBy this original proceeding, relator, the State of Texas, seeks a writ of mandamus to compel the Honorable Ron Enns, Judge of the 69th District Court of Dallam County, to vacate his order granting Brenda Thaxton's motion to enforce a plea agreement. Thaxton was indicted for child endangerment for conduct that allegedly lead to the death of her son by her boyfriend Nathan Felder. Felder's direct appeal is pending in this Court in cause number 07-03-0260-CR.
Article 2.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure (Vernon Supp. 2004), provides that when an attorney for the State is disqualified, absent, or otherwise unable to perform the duties of the office in any case or proceeding, the judge of the court may appoint an attorney to perform the duties. The clerk's record in Felder's direct appeal contains an order signed April 27, 2001, appointing "JOHN NEAL or any ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE STATE OF TEXAS" as attorney pro tem for the purpose of prosecuting the case against Felder.
The pending petition for writ of mandamus is brought by Assistant Attorney General Laura Bayouth Popps, in her capacity as District Attorney Pro Tem. However, nothing in the limited record filed demonstrates that the trial court appointed an Assistant Attorney General to bring this action. Thus, the Court directs that Laura Bayouth Popps show her standing to initiate and prosecute this original proceeding on or before March 18, 2004, before any further action can be taken.
It is so ordered.
Per Curiam
1. John T. Boyd, Chief Justice (Ret.), Seventh Court of Appeals, sitting by assignment.
unsel's view, the appeal is without merit. In addition, counsel has demonstrated that he notified appellant of his right to review the record and file a pro se response if he desired to do so. Appellant did not file a response. Neither did the State favor us with a brief.
By his Anders brief, counsel raises several grounds that could arguably support an appeal. We have reviewed these grounds and made an independent review of the entire record to determine whether there are any arguable grounds which might support an appeal. See Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 109 S. Ct. 346, 102 L. Ed. 2d 300 (1988); Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824 (Tex.Cr.App. 2005). We have found no such grounds and agree with counsel that the appeal is frivolous.
Accordingly, counsel's motions to withdraw are hereby granted and the trial court's judgments are affirmed.
Don H. Reavis
Justice
Do not publish.
1. Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967).