NOS. 12-15-00155-CR

 12-15-00156-CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

KENDRIC DARNELL CROWDER, 

APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

APPELLEE

§

§

§

APPEALS FROM THE

COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 2

SMITH COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Kendric Darnell Crowder appeals his convictions for indecent exposure. We affirm on 

the record.

Appellant was charged by complaint and information in two cases for indecent exposure. 

Appellant pleaded “guilty” to the offenses and waived his right to a jury trial. On April 20, 

2015, the trial court accepted Appellant’s pleas, found him guilty of the offenses, and sentenced 

him to 100 days of confinement in the county jail for each offense.1 These appeals followed. 

On June 22, 2015, we notified Appellant that he had failed to file a docketing statement 

in each appeal. We granted him two extensions of time to file the docketing statements, but he 

did not do so. On July 7, 2015, we ordered that the trial court hold a hearing to determine the 

cause of Appellant’s failure to file the docketing statements and whether he has abandoned the 

appeals. See TEX. R. APP. P. 32.2. After giving notice to Appellant, the trial court attempted to 

hold the hearing on July 8, 2015, July 9, 2015, and July 13, 2015, but he failed to appear. The 

trial court contacted Appellant’s attorney in the proceedings below, who informed the court that 

 

1 The trial court credited Appellant for time served while awaiting trial after he violated the terms of his 

bond.
2

he did not represent Appellant in the appeals.2 On July 22, 2015, Appellant’s counsel filed a 

motion to withdraw. The trial court sent Appellant another notice of hearing, and the clerk 

contacted Appellant’s family members, who were unable to provide information concerning 

Appellant’s whereabouts. On September 4, 2015, the trial court granted counsel’s motion to 

withdraw. 

On September 14, 2015, we notified Appellant that the appeals would be submitted on 

the clerk’s records alone unless he provided proof of full payment for the preparation of the 

reporter’s records by September 24, 2015. On September 30, 2015, we received communication 

from the court reporter that Appellant failed to contact her and make payment arrangements for 

the preparation of the reporter’s records. That same day, we notified Appellant that his briefs 

were due on October 30, 2015, and that we would submit the cases on the clerk’s record. 

On November 3, 2015, we notified Appellant that he had failed to timely file his briefs in

both cases, and on November 16, 2015, we issued an order in each case directing the trial court 

to hold a hearing to determine whether he abandoned his appeals. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.8(b)(3). 

The trial court sent notice of the hearing to Appellant and held it on December 1, 2015. But once 

again, Appellant failed to appear. 

The trial court did not expressly find that Appellant had abandoned the appeals. 

However, we may suspend the operation of a particular rule on our own initiative for good cause. 

See TEX. R. APP. P. 2. Given the history of these cases, we find good cause to suspend the 

requirement of Rule 38.8(b)(4) that the trial court find Appellant no longer desires to prosecute 

the appeals. See Garcia v. State, No. 01-14-00939-CR, 2016 WL 3269931, at *2 (Tex. App.—

Houston [1st Dist.] June 14, 2016, no. pet. h.) (per curiam) (mem. op., not designated for 

publication); Bryan v. State, No. 07-08-0174-CR, 2009 WL 196043, at *1-2 (Tex. App.—

Amarillo Jan. 28, 2009, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication). We find that 

Appellant has made no attempt to prosecute these appeals since they were perfected on May 8, 

2015, and we conclude that, based on the above facts, that Appellant no longer desires to 

prosecute this appeal and has abandoned it. 

When an appellant in a criminal case abandons the appeal, the appellate court may not 

dismiss the case but may consider it on the record alone. TEX. R. APP. P. 38.8(b)(1), (4). 

 

2 Appellant retained counsel for the proceedings in the trial court. The record does not reflect that he 

requested appointed counsel or a free record on appeal. 
3

Appellant did not pay, or make arrangements to pay, for the reporter’s record in this case. 

Therefore, only the clerk’s record is presented for review. We have reviewed the clerk’s record 

for fundamental error and found none. See Alakhras v. State, 73 S.W.3d 434, 436 (Tex. App.—

Houston [1st Dist.] 2002, no pet.). Therefore, the trial court’s judgment is affirmed.

GREG NEELEY

Justice

Opinion delivered July 29, 2016.

Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J., and Neeley, J.

(DO NOT PUBLISH)
COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS

JUDGMENT

JULY 29, 2016

NO. 12-15-00155-CR

KENDRIC DARNELL CROWDER,

Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee

Appeal from the County Court at Law No 2 

of Smith County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. 001-83649-14)

THIS CAUSE came to be heard on the appellate record and briefs filed 

herein, and the same being considered, it is the opinion of this court that there was no error in the 

judgment.

It is therefore ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that the judgment 

of the court below be in all things affirmed, and that this decision be certified to the court 

below for observance.

Greg Neeley, Justice.

Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J., and Neeley, J.
COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS

JUDGMENT

JULY 29, 2016

NO. 12-15-00156-CR

KENDRIC DARNELL CROWDER,

Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee

Appeal from the County Court at Law No 2 

of Smith County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. 001-83650-14)

THIS CAUSE came to be heard on the appellate record and briefs filed 

herein, and the same being considered, it is the opinion of this court that there was no error in the 

judgment.

It is therefore ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that the judgment 

of the court below be in all things affirmed, and that this decision be certified to the court 

below for observance.

Greg Neeley, Justice.

Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J., and Neeley, J.