Charles Deon Matthews v. State ( 2013 )


Menu:
  • Opinion issued June 27, 2013
    In The
    Court of Appeals
    For The
    First District of Texas
    ————————————
    NO. 01-11-01085-CR
    ———————————
    CHARLES DEON MATTHEWS, Appellant
    V.
    THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
    On Appeal from the 337th District Court
    Harris County, Texas
    Trial Court Cause No. 1285686
    MEMORANDUM OPINION
    On February 14, 2013, we abated the appeal and ordered a hearing in the
    trial court because appellant, Charles Deon Matthews, had not filed a brief.
    Among the issues the trial court was to consider was whether appellant desired to
    prosecute the appeal. The trial court conducted a hearing on March 1, 2013, at
    which appellant appeared with his retained counsel. A supplemental clerk’s record
    and a reporter’s record of the hearing have been filed, and we have reinstated the
    appeal.
    The hearing record reflects that the trial court explained to appellant his
    appellate rights and explained that he may be entitled to appointed counsel.
    Appellant stated on the record in open court that he had consulted with counsel and
    that he wished to withdraw his appeal. At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial
    court found that appellant does not wish to prosecute the appeal. In addition, the
    supplemental clerk’s record reflects that, on the day of the hearing, appellant filed
    a “Notice of Waiver of Appeal,” which is signed by appellant and his counsel.
    Appellant has not filed a motion in this Court to withdraw the appeal. See
    TEX. R. APP. P. 42.2(a). Given appellant’s expressed desire on the record in open
    court to forego pursuit of his appeal, however, we conclude that good cause exists
    to suspend the operation of Rule 42 in this case, in accordance with Rule 2. See
    TEX. R. APP. P. 2, 42; Conners v. State, 
    966 S.W.2d 108
    , 110–11 (Tex. App.—
    Houston [1st Dist.] 1998, pet. ref’d). We have not yet issued a decision in the
    appeal.
    Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 43.2(f). We
    dismiss any pending motions as moot.
    2
    PER CURIAM
    Panel consists of Justices Keyes, Higley, and Bland.
    Do not publish. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 01-11-01085-CR

Filed Date: 6/27/2013

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 10/16/2015