You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.

Dwight Lee Looney v. State

Citation: Not availableDocket: 02-15-00023-CR

Court: Court of Appeals of Texas; August 31, 2015; Texas; State Appellate Court

Original Court Document: View Document

Narrative Opinion Summary

A motion to withdraw as attorney on appeal was filed by Dwight Lee Looney's attorney, M. Shawn Matlock, on July 10, 2015, stating that any appeal would be wholly frivolous and without merit. Looney has expressed the desire to continue the appeal pro se (on his own behalf). The Court of Appeals has set a deadline for Looney to file his pro se response to the Anders brief by October 30, 2015. If no response is filed by this date, the court will assume he does not intend to file a brief, and the State will then have 30 days to respond. The appeal will be considered after the State's brief is filed, if applicable.

Legal Issues Addressed

Assumption of Waiver of Brief Filing

Application: The court will assume that Looney does not intend to file a brief if he fails to meet the filing deadline, impacting the procedural progression of the appeal.

Reasoning: If no response is filed by this date, the court will assume he does not intend to file a brief, and the State will then have 30 days to respond.

Motion to Withdraw as Attorney under Anders v. California

Application: The attorney for Dwight Lee Looney filed a motion to withdraw on the grounds that any appeal would be frivolous and without merit, following the procedure established under Anders v. California.

Reasoning: A motion to withdraw as attorney on appeal was filed by Dwight Lee Looney's attorney, M. Shawn Matlock, on July 10, 2015, stating that any appeal would be wholly frivolous and without merit.

Procedural Deadlines for Pro Se Response

Application: The Court of Appeals provided Looney with a deadline to file his pro se response to the Anders brief, establishing a timeline for procedural actions.

Reasoning: The Court of Appeals has set a deadline for Looney to file his pro se response to the Anders brief by October 30, 2015.

Right to Self-Representation on Appeal

Application: Looney has expressed his desire to represent himself on appeal, indicating his intention to continue the appeal pro se.

Reasoning: Looney has expressed the desire to continue the appeal pro se (on his own behalf).

Timeline for State's Response Brief

Application: The State is given 30 days to file its response if Looney does not file a pro se brief by the deadline, ensuring the appeal process continues in a timely manner.

Reasoning: If no response is filed by this date, the court will assume he does not intend to file a brief, and the State will then have 30 days to respond.