In The
Court of Appeals
Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo
________________________
No. 07-13-00447-CR
________________________
ADAM MOSES RAMOS, APPELLANT
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE
On Appeal from the 47th District Court
Potter County, Texas
Trial Court No. 66,280-A; Honorable Dan Schaap, Presiding
August 7, 2014
ORDER ON PRO SE REQUEST FOR RECORD
Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and PIRTLE, JJ.
Following a plea of not guilty, Appellant, Adam Moses Ramos, was convicted by
a jury of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon and sentenced to thirteen years
confinement.1 On July 21, 2014, Appellant’s court-appointed counsel filed a brief
pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744-45, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493
(1967), wherein he concluded that Appellant’s appeal was frivolous. Counsel also filed
1
TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 22.02(a) (West 2011).
a motion to withdraw as required by In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 406 (Tex. Crim.
App. 2008), which included a copy of a letter to Appellant satisfying the educational
burdens imposed by law.
Pending before this Court is Appellant’s pro se request for a copy of the appellate
record in this appeal. His request is dated July 28, 2014. In Kelly v. State, __ S.W.3d
__, No. PD-0702-13, 2014 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 911 (Tex. Crim. App. June 25, 2014),
the Court of Criminal Appeals held that appointed counsel has a duty in an Anders case
to assist his client in filing a motion to access the appellate record, if the client desires to
file a response. The Court further held that the ultimate responsibility for ensuring “one
way or another” that an appellant is granted access to the record falls on appellate
courts. Id. at *2. Kelly further requires appellate courts to enter a formal written order
ruling on a pro se motion to access the appellate record in an Anders appeal. Id. at *21.
Appellant’s pro se request notwithstanding, appointed counsel’s letter to his client
dated July 19, 2014, provides “[w]e have previously given you copies of the Reporter’s
Record and Clerk’s Record for your review.” Based on this statement, because
Appellant already has a copy of the appellate record, his request is rendered moot.
This Court sua sponte grants Appellant an extension of time to September 22, 2014, in
which to file a pro se response to counsel’s brief should he desire to do so.
It is so ordered.
Per Curiam
Do not publish.
2