COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE
FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON
ORDER
Appellate case name: Gerald Hayes v. The State of Texas
Appellate case number: 01-09-00437-CR
Trial court case number: 1198372
Trial court: 351st District Court of Harris County
Appellant, Gerald Hayes, has filed a series of pro se motions relating to filing a pro se
response to the Anders brief filed by his appellate counsel, Franklin Bynum. See Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396 (1967).
Appellant has filed a “Motion for Copies and Review of Appellate Record,” in which he
requests a copy of this Court’s record since August of 2012, including “all letters,
motions, and correspondence” and copies of previously filed appellate briefs. In
addition, appellant has filed a “Request for Appellate Record and Docket Sheet” in which
he requests this Court’s “docket sheet since the appointment of Franklin Bynum” in
September 2012, stating that this will “clarify the filings and actions that might or might
not support the Anders briefing” and again urging that the appellate record is incomplete.
A pro se response in the Anders context is an opportunity for an appellant to present what
he believes are issues of procedural or substantive concern regarding his case in the trial
court. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744, 87 S. Ct. at 1400; Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824,
827 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). The motions are denied.
Appellant has filed a “Notice to Court and Clerk (Requesting Record),” in which he asks
that he be provided with original exhibits, including pictures, “evidence tags,” and “log
in/out sheets of State’s exhibits.” The motion is denied.
Appellant’s “Motion to Deny or Quash [the] Anders Brief” is denied.
Appellant has filed a “Motion to Compel Court to Accept and Consider for Review Filed
Briefs,” in which he requests that the Court consider his prior brief, which the Court
ordered stricken, and his prior counsel’s brief, filed December 2010, in addition to the
pro se response that appellant states he intends to file. The Court will consider one pro se
response. The motion is denied.
Appellant’s motion for an extension of time to file a pro se response to the Anders brief is
granted. Appellant’s response must be filed no later than July 8, 2013.
It is so ORDERED.
Judge’s signature: /s/ Sherry Radack
Acting individually Acting for the Court
Date: June 10, 2013