Carlos Otilio Gonzalez v. State ( 2019 )

In The
Court of Appeals
Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo
________________________
Nos. 07-19-00021-CR
07-19-00022-CR
________________________
CARLOS OTILIO GONZALEZ, APPELLANT
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE
On Appeal from the 187th District Court
Bexar County, Texas
Trial Court Nos. 2010CR6300A & 2010CR6301A; Honorable Joey Contreras, Presiding
April 25, 2019
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and PIRTLE, JJ.
In 2011, Appellant, Carlos Otilio Gonzalez, was granted deferred adjudication
community supervision for five years and assessed a $1,500 fine for two offenses of
burglary of a habitation.1 In 2016, the trial court adjudicated Appellant guilty of the
offenses, sentenced Appellant to ten years confinement, and assessed a fine of $1,500
1 TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 30.02(a), (c)(2) (West Supp. 2018).
for each offense. The trial court suspended the sentences in favor of community
supervision for five years. In 2018, the State moved to revoke Appellant’s community
supervision based on his violations of its terms and conditions. Appellant pleaded true to
the State’s allegations, and the trial court revoked his community supervision. Appellant
was sentenced to six years confinement and assessed a $1,500 fine for each offense,
with the sentences to run concurrently. Appellant filed a notice of appeal in both causes,
proceeding pro se.
On February 20, 2019, we abated the appeals and remanded the causes to the
trial court to determine (1) whether Appellant still desired to prosecute the appeals, (2)
whether Appellant was indigent and entitled to appointed counsel, and (3) whether
Appellant was entitled to have the reporter’s record furnished without charge. The trial
court held a hearing on April 10, 2019. At the hearing, Appellant notified the trial court
that he no longer wished to pursue the appeals. The trial court entered findings of fact
and conclusions of law providing same.
Because Appellant no longer desires to prosecute the appeals, we invoke
Appellate Rule 2 to suspend operation of Appellate Rule 42.2(a), which requires that
Appellant and his attorney sign a motion to dismiss. See TEX. R. APP. P. 2, 42.2(a).
Accordingly, the appeals are dismissed. No motion for rehearing will be entertained and
our mandates will issue forthwith.
It is so ordered.
Per Curiam
Do not publish.
2