William Ian Campbell v. State ( 2011 )


Menu:
  •                         COURT OF APPEALS
    SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS
    FORT WORTH
    NOS. 02-11-00164-CR
    02-11-00165-CR
    WILLIAM IAN CAMPBELL                                                APPELLANT
    V.
    THE STATE OF TEXAS                                                       STATE
    ------------
    FROM CRIMINAL DISTRICT COURT NO. 4 OF TARRANT COUNTY
    ------------
    MEMORANDUM OPINION1 AND JUDGMENT
    ----------
    Appellant William Ian Campbell’s appointed counsel has filed a motion to
    withdraw as attorney on appeal and a brief supporting that motion in compliance
    with Anders v. California, 
    386 U.S. 738
    , 
    87 S. Ct. 1396
     (1967). We notified
    Appellant of his opportunity to file a pro se response to his appointed counsel’s
    1
    See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.
    Anders brief. Appellant did not file a response but instead filed a pro se letter
    requesting that we dismiss his appeal in the above cause numbers.
    We interpret Appellant’s letter as a motion to dismiss his appeal.       The
    motion was signed by Appellant only and not by his appointed counsel; therefore,
    the motion does not comply with rule 42.2(a) of the rules of appellate procedure.
    See Tex. R. App. P. 42.2(a). But because Appellant’s appointed counsel has
    filed a motion to withdraw and a supporting brief stating that any appeal would be
    wholly frivolous and without merit, on our own initiative and for good cause, we
    suspend rule 42.2(a)’s requirement that the motion be signed by Appellant’s
    attorney. See Tex. R. App. P. 2 (providing that “on its own initiative an appellate
    court may—to expedite a decision or for other good cause—suspend a rule’s
    operation in a particular case”); Smith v. State, No. 02-07-00029-CR, 
    2007 WL 1725820
    , at *1 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth June 14, 2007, no pet.) (mem. op., not
    designated for publication).
    No decision of this court having been delivered before we received this
    motion, we grant the motion and dismiss the appeal.2 See Tex. R. App. P.
    42.2(a), 43.2(f).
    PER CURIAM
    PANEL: WALKER, MCCOY, and MEIER, JJ.
    2
    Because Campbell has voluntarily dismissed this appeal, we need not
    address counsel’s motion to withdraw.
    2
    DO NOT PUBLISH
    Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)
    DELIVERED: November 3, 2011
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 02-11-00164-CR

Filed Date: 11/3/2011

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 10/16/2015