Background
Alexander Zuniga appealed his convictions for two counts of aggravated sexual assault of a child and the concurrent thirty-year sentences imposed for each conviction.
Zuniga’s appointed counsel, Scott Simpkins, did not file the appellate brief by its original July 9, 2026 deadline. The court warned counsel that failure to file by July 27 would result in abatement and remand without further notice, but counsel neither filed a brief nor communicated further with the court.
The Court’s Holding
The court did not address the merits of Zuniga’s convictions or sentences. It abated the appeal and remanded the case under Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 38.8(b)(2) and (3) for the trial court to determine whether Zuniga wishes to continue the appeal, whether he is indigent, why no brief was filed, whether counsel abandoned the appeal or rendered ineffective assistance, whether new counsel should be appointed, and when a brief can be expected.
The appellate court also directed the trial court to examine counsel’s compliance with briefing deadlines because the same court had previously remanded eleven other appeals due to counsel’s failure to file timely briefs. The trial court must enter appropriate orders and submit findings in a supplemental record by September 8, 2026. If Zuniga wishes to proceed, is indigent, and has been denied effective assistance, the trial court may appoint new counsel.
Key Takeaways
- The order pauses the appeal and sends the case back for fact-finding; it does not resolve the merits.
- The trial court must investigate whether appointed counsel abandoned the appeal or denied Zuniga effective assistance.
- Counsel’s history of missed briefing deadlines in eleven other appeals must be addressed on remand.
Why It Matters
Texas appellate procedure protects a criminal appellant from losing an appeal solely because counsel failed to file a brief. Abatement allows the trial court to determine whether the appellant still seeks review and whether substitute counsel is necessary.
The order also signals heightened concern about repeated briefing failures by appointed counsel and requires the trial court to evaluate counsel’s broader compliance with appellate deadlines.