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.

Joe Antony Cabral v. State

Citation: Not availableDocket: 08-19-00128-CR

Court: Court of Appeals of Texas; February 27, 2020; Texas; State Appellate Court

Original Court Document: View Document

Narrative Opinion Summary

The Court of Appeals for the Eighth District of Texas has granted Jose Antony Cabral's fourth motion for an extension of time to file his appellate brief, setting the new deadline for April 2, 2020. The Court specifies that no further motions for extension will be considered. It orders Hon. Felix Valenzuela, the Appellant's attorney, to prepare and submit the brief by the established deadline. The Court acknowledges the attorney's efforts in involving the client in the appellate process but emphasizes that the attorney's review of the record for potential errors takes precedence over the client's review of the trial transcript. The order is dated February 28, 2020, and is issued per curiam by the panel including Chief Justice Alley and Justices Rodriguez and Palafox.

Legal Issues Addressed

Appellate Procedure: Extension of Time for Filing Briefs

Application: The court grants an extension of time for filing an appellate brief but limits future extensions, emphasizing the importance of timely submissions.

Reasoning: The Court of Appeals for the Eighth District of Texas has granted Jose Antony Cabral's fourth motion for an extension of time to file his appellate brief, setting the new deadline for April 2, 2020. The Court specifies that no further motions for extension will be considered.

Attorney's Duty in Appellate Process

Application: The court clarifies the attorney's primary responsibility to review the record for potential errors over facilitating the client's review of the trial transcript.

Reasoning: The Court acknowledges the attorney's efforts in involving the client in the appellate process but emphasizes that the attorney's review of the record for potential errors takes precedence over the client's review of the trial transcript.