Summary
suspending Rule 42.2 and allowing dismissal of the appeal where the appellant had not signed the motion to dismiss but evidence showed that the appellant did not wish to pursue the appeal
Summary of this case from Tovar v. StateOpinion
No. 07-19-00021-CR No. 07-19-00022-CR
04-25-2019
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
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. In 2016, the trial court adjudicated Appellant guilty of the offenses, sentenced Appellant to ten years confinement, and assessed a fine of $1,500 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.
TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 30.02(a), (c)(2) (West Supp. 2018).
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Per Curiam Do not publish.