IN THE
TENTH COURT OF APPEALS
No. 10-15-00124-CR
JUSTIN GLENN REYNOLDS,
Appellant
v.
THE STATE OF TEXAS,
Appellee
From the County Court at Law
Navarro County, Texas
Trial Court No. C35736-CR
ORDER
A jury convicted Appellant Justin Reynolds of the offenses of possession of a
controlled substance. The trial court assessed punishment at 25 years confinement.
Counsel for Appellant filed a motion to withdraw and Anders1 brief in this appeal.
Counsel did not send Appellant a Motion for Pro Se Access to the Appellate Record in
accordance with the Court of Criminal Appeals’ opinion in Kelly v. State. See Kelly v. State,
1 Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967).
436 S.W.3d 313, 315, 320 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). Counsel’s letter to Appellant states in
one paragraph that she sent copies of the Clerk’s and Reporter’s records to Appellant.
However, in a later paragraph, she instructs Appellant that he may request a free copy of
the record from the district clerk and provides the address of the district clerk’s office.
This Court received a letter from Appellant stating that he did not receive a copy of the
record from counsel. In the letter, Appellant seeks access to the record.
In accordance with Stanley v. State, ___ S.W.3d ___, 2015 WL 2169874 (Tex. App.—
Waco May 7, 2015, order) (per curiam), counsel is ORDERED to obtain and send
Appellant, within 14 days from the date of this order, copies of the clerk’s and reporter’s
records and to simultaneously notify this Court, the State, the trial court, and the trial
court clerk when counsel has completed this task. In the event that the record made
available to Appellant must be returned to the trial court clerk, counsel must notify
Appellant and this Court of that fact.
Counsel is reminded that there are certain rules and statutes that prohibit certain
sensitive or illegal information from being included in a public record. See TEX. R. APP.
P. 9.10. If counsel has identified any such information while conducting the review of the
record as necessary to prepare the Anders brief in support of counsel’s motion to
withdraw, counsel should take appropriate steps to redact or in some manner remove
that information from the copy of the record that is being provided to Appellant.
Reynolds v. State Page 2
Appellant is ORDERED to file his pro se response to counsel’s Anders brief2 within
30 days from the date counsel sends notice to the Court that the record has been
forwarded to Appellant, unless the due date is extended by order of this Court upon
proper and timely motion by Appellant. If counsel notifies Appellant and this Court that
the record being provided to Appellant was obtained from the trial court clerk and must
be returned thereto, Appellant is ORDERED to not take the record apart or mark on or
modify the record.
If the record must be returned to the trial court clerk, so that its return to the trial
court clerk can be monitored and enforced, Appellant is ORDERED to send the record to
this Court with Appellant’s response. If no response is filed, but nevertheless, the record
must be returned to the trial court clerk, Appellant is ORDERED to send the record to
this Court within 45 days of the date the attorney sends notice to the Court that the record
was forwarded to the Appellant, unless the due date is extended by order of this Court
upon proper and timely motion by Appellant.
Appellant’s failure to comply with this Order, including the failure to send the
record to this Court within the time specified, if herein required, may result in the
dismissal of the appeal under our inherent authority upon the presumption that the
record was obtained under false pretense and with no intent to pursue the appeal but
instead was obtained for the purposes of delay.
2Appellant states in the motion that he is asserting his right to file a pro se appeal. We construe this to
mean that he desires to file a pro se response to counsel’s Anders brief.
Reynolds v. State Page 3
PER CURIAM
Before Chief Justice Gray,
Justice Davis, and
Justice Scoggins
Order issued and filed December 3, 2015
Do not publish
Reynolds v. State Page 4