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.

Julio Cervantes-Segura v. State

Citation: Not availableDocket: 01-16-00793-CR

Court: Court of Appeals of Texas; June 8, 2017; Texas; State Appellate Court

Original Court Document: View Document

Narrative Opinion Summary

In the appellate case of Julio Cervantes-Segura v. The State of Texas, the Court of Appeals for the First District of Texas considered a third motion for an extension of time to file the appellant's brief. The appellant, represented by counsel Nicole DeBorde, sought an extension beyond the already twice-extended deadline of May 30, 2017, requesting a new deadline of June 30, 2017. The court granted this request but firmly stipulated that no further extensions would be permitted unless extraordinary circumstances were presented. The rationale for the extension involved the counsel's numerous professional commitments in May, including various briefs, hearings, trials, and seminars. Judge Evelyn V. Keyes, presiding, underscored the importance of adhering to court deadlines, warning that failure to submit the brief by the new deadline would result in the abatement of the case. This decision reflects the court's balancing of procedural efficiency and the practical realities faced by legal practitioners with multiple obligations.

Legal Issues Addressed

Appellate Procedure: Extensions for Filing Briefs

Application: The court granted an extension for filing the appellant's brief, highlighting the importance of meeting filing deadlines and the limited scope for further extensions.

Reasoning: The court granted the motion, allowing the new due date of June 30, 2017, but emphasized that no further extensions would be granted unless extraordinary circumstances arise.

Consequences of Non-Compliance with Court Deadlines

Application: The court outlined the consequences of failing to meet the new deadline, emphasizing the potential abatement of the case.

Reasoning: The court also indicated that failure to file the appellant's brief by the new deadline would result in the abatement of the case.