IN THE
TENTH COURT OF APPEALS
No. 10-13-00144-CR
BENJAMIN CRAIG LEWIS,
Appellant
v.
THE STATE OF TEXAS,
Appellee
From the 272nd District Court
Brazos County, Texas
Trial Court No. 11-03276-CRF-272
ORDER
By Order dated September 19, 2013, we granted Lewis’s pro se request for an
extension of time to file his response to his counsel’s Anders brief. We noted that the
motion was not properly served. We warned Lewis that future documents presented to
the Court must be properly served or the documents will be stricken. Based on that
warning, we struck Lewis’s “First Motion for Extension of Time to file Appellants Pro
Se Brief or Response to Ander’s Brief” by Order dated October 10, 2013, because the
motion was not served. (It was actually Lewis’s second motion).
Lewis has filed another motion for extension of time to file his response to his
counsel’s Anders brief. For the first time, Lewis contends that he never received a copy
of his attorney’s Anders brief. Counsel’s Anders brief indicates that a copy of the brief
was sent to Lewis. Should Lewis require another copy, he should contact his attorney,
Calvin Parks. Lewis also complains that no one has sent him the record for his review.
By letter dated August 29, 2013 the Clerk of this Court advised Lewis how to obtain a
copy of the record: “If you wish to obtain a copy of the record, you must contact the
trial court clerk, whose address is:
Hon. Marc Hamlin
District Clerk, Brazos County
300 E. 26th Street, Suite 1200
Bryan, TX 77803”
We have had no indication from Lewis that he has attempted to contact the trial court
clerk to obtain a copy of the record.
Further, we note that Lewis’s motion again was not properly served because not
all parties to the appeal were served. See TEX. R. APP. P. 9.5(a). The Clerk of this Court
and the District Clerk are not parties to the appeal. The State of Texas, represented by
the Brazos County District Attorney, is a party to the appeal. The State was not served.
Accordingly, because Lewis’s “Second Motion for Extension of Time to File
Response to the Anders Brief” (actually his third motion for extension of time) filed on
November 7, 2013, was not properly served, it is stricken. Lewis’s response to his
counsel’s Anders brief remains due by November 18, 2013. If Lewis wishes to file
another motion for extension of time to file a response, he may do so but he must file a
Lewis v. State Page 2
properly served motion and must provide the Court with proof, such as copies of
letters, that he has requested a copy of the Anders brief from his counsel and that he has
requested a copy of the record from the trial court clerk.
In the absence of a properly and timely filed response, the Court will proceed to
review the proceeding as required by the Anders procedures.
PER CURIAM
Before Chief Justice Gray,
Justice Davis, and
Justice Scoggins
Motion stricken
Order issued and filed November 21, 2013
Lewis v. State Page 3