Leonard Preston, Jr. v. the State of Texas ( 2024 )

NO. 12-24-00065-CR
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT
TYLER, TEXAS
LEONARD PRESTON, JR., § APPEAL FROM THE 369TH
APPELLANT
V. § JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
THE STATE OF TEXAS,
APPELLEE § ANDERSON COUNTY, TEXAS
MEMORANDUM OPINION
PER CURIAM
Leonard Preston, Jr.’s appellate counsel filed a motion to dismiss this appeal. According
to the motion, Appellant contacted counsel by letter and advised that he no longer desires to
pursue the appeal. Appellant’s letter is attached to the motion to dismiss. In his letter, Appellant
states, “I would just like to terminate the appeal process all together.” On September 20, 2024,
counsel mailed a motion to dismiss to Appellant for his signature, but tracking information
shows that as of October 5, the mailing has not been delivered.
At any time before an appellate court’s decision, the appellate court may dismiss the
appeal upon the appellant’s motion signed by both appellant and his counsel. TEX. R. APP.
P. 44.2(a). Appellant has not signed the motion to dismiss his appeal. Nevertheless, given
Appellant’s letter, we conclude that good cause exists to suspend the operation of Rule 42.2(a) in
accordance with Rule 2. See TEX. R. APP. P. 2 (“On a party’s motion or 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 and order a different procedure”); see also Flowers v. State, No. 06-18-00104-
CR, 2018 WL 3848645, at *1 (Tex. App.—Texarkana Aug. 14, 2018, no pet.) (mem. op., not
designated for publication) (citing Rule 42.2 and dismissing appeal when counsel’s motion to
dismiss, included appellant’s letter requesting dismissal of appeal); see generally Jolls v. State,
No. 12-24-00215-CR, 2024 WL 3998797, at *1 (Tex. App.—Tyler Aug. 29, 2024, no pet.) (per
curiam) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (dismissing appeal based on Appellant’s
representations at hearing and trial court’s letter, finding good cause to suspend operation of
Rule 42). Accordingly, we grant the motion to dismiss and dismiss the appeal.
Opinion delivered October 9, 2024.
Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J., and Neeley, J.
(DO NOT PUBLISH)
2
COURT OF APPEALS
TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS
JUDGMENT
OCTOBER 9, 2024
NO. 12-24-00065-CR
LEONARD PRESTON, JR.,
Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS,
Appellee
Appeal from the 369th District Court
of Anderson County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. 369CR-22-36062)
THIS CAUSE came on to be heard on the motion of the Appellant to dismiss
the appeal herein, and the same being considered, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED and
DECREED by this Court that the motion to dismiss be granted and the appeal be dismissed, and
that the decision be certified to the court below for observance.
By per curiam opinion.
Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J. and Neeley, J.