Order entered September 18, 2013
In The
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05-12-01345-CR
TIMOTHY ALEXANDER, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 195th Judicial District Court
Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. F11-34377-N
ORDER
The Court GRANTS appellant’s September 4, 2013 pro se motion to for an updated copy
of this Court’s docket sheet. We DIRECT the Clerk to print and mail appellant a copy of the
Court’s docket sheet for this case.
The Court GRANTS appellant’s September 4, 2013 pro se motion to be provided a file-
stamped copy of his pro se response. We DIRECT the Clerk to send appellant a copy of his
Revised Pro Se Response V bearing the September 3, 2013 file-stamp.
The Court DENIES appellant’s September 4, 2013 pro se motion to compel the State to
file a reply brief to appellant’s response to the Anders brief. The State is not required to file
briefs to pro se responses to Anders briefs. See generally Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824 (Tex.
Crim. App. 2005) (describing Anders procedure).
The Court DENIES appellant’s September 4, 2013 pro se motion to direct the Clerk of
this Court to provide him with a file-stamped copy of the reporter’s record filed on August 5,
2013; his September 4, 2013 pro se “Motion to Stipulate” that he has not received a file-stamped
copy of the record; and his September 4, 2013 pro se motion to stipulate the copy of the record
provided to him by his attorney is not the identical document filed with the Court. Appellant’s
attorney informed the Court that she gave appellant a copy of that record, and his complaint goes
to the lack of file-stamp on the copy provided by his attorney.
The Court DENIES as moot appellant’s September 4, 2013 “motion to file appellant’s
brief revised edition V.” That pro se response was ordered file on September 4, 2013.
The Court DENIES appellant’s September 4, 2013 motion for a written explanation of
why his pro se response was not filed immediately upon receipt.
The Court DENIES appellant’s September 4, 2013 motion for ruling on his July 17, 2013
motion for TRAP 44.2(a) Harmless Error Review. That motion has been deferred to the
submissions panel, and appellant’s case will be reviewed pursuant to the requirements of Anders
v. California. See generally Bledsoe, 178 S.W.3d at 824.
The Court GRANTS appellant’s motion to articulate which brief is before the Court on
appeal. The Court has before it the Anders brief filed by appellant’s counsel and appellant’s
September 3, 2013 pro se response.
The Court DENIES as moot appellant’s September 4, 2013 motion seeking an order
preventing alteration of the reporter’s record from the suppression hearing. The record before
the Court has been certified by the court reporter.
The Court DENIES as moot appellant’s September 4, 2013 motion to file in all of the
briefs he filed. All of the pro se “briefs” tendered by appellant since his attorney filed the Anders
brief that allowed appellant to file a pro se response have been filed.
The Court DENIES appellant’s September 4, 2013 pro se motion to direct the Clerk to
relabel the brief filed by counsel.
The Court DENIES appellant’s September 4, 2013 “motion to abrogate” the August 21,
2013 order granting him an extension until October 15, 2013 to file his pro se response. As
previously stated, appellant’s Revised Pro Se Response V has been filed.
We DIRECT the Clerk to treat appellant’s September 4, 2013 “Motion to Uphold Legal
Ethics, the Texas and U.S. Constitution, Truth, Justice and the American Way” and his
September 4, 2013 “Motion to Safeguard Appellant’s Due Process Rights” as letters received
rather than as motions.
The case is now at issue and will be submitted in due course.
We DIRECT the Clerk to send a copy of this order in addition to the Court’s docket
sheet and a file-stamped copy of the September 3, 2013 Revised Pro Se Response V, by first-
class mail, to Timothy Alexander, No. 12060058, Dallas County Jail, P.O. Box 660334, Dallas,
Texas 75266-0334.
/s/ LANA MYERS
JUSTICE