In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

___________________________

No. 02-18-00457-CR

___________________________

On Appeal from the 78th District Court

Wichita County, Texas

Trial Court No. 59,150-B

Before Kerr, Pittman, and Birdwell, JJ.

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Kerr

RUSSELL WILLIAM DETWILER, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS
2

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Without a plea bargain and while represented by counsel, Russell William 

Detwiler pleaded nolo contendere to indecency with a child by contact. See Tex. Penal

Code Ann. § 21.11(a)(1). The trial court found Detwiler guilty and sentenced him to 

five years’ imprisonment. Two weeks later, Detwiler filed a pro se notice of appeal.

When questions arose about Detwiler’s indigency and whether he was entitled 

to appointed counsel, we abated the appeal and remanded the case to the trial court to 

determine, among other things, whether Detwiler wished to continue the appeal. 

Complying with our order, the trial court conducted a hearing with Detwiler—but no 

defense counsel—present.1 On the record, Detwiler agreed that when previously 

before the court, he had told his trial counsel that he did not want to appeal; asked 

about his present desire, Detwiler stated that his wish was still not to appeal. The trial 

court then signed written findings, one of which was that Detwiler did not want to 

prosecute his appeal. We have both the reporter’s record of the hearing and the clerk’s 

record containing the trial court’s findings.

Although Detwiler has stated on the record that he does not want to prosecute 

his appeal, he has not filed a motion to voluntarily dismiss it as required by rule 

42.2(a) of the appellate rules of procedure. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.2(a).

 

1The plea hearing was on October 4, 2018. On October 15, the trial court 

signed an order allowing Detwiler’s trial counsel to withdraw, and on October 22, the

trial court denied Detwiler’s request for appointed counsel because it found that he 

was not indigent.
3

But based on the reporter’s and clerk’s records filed with us, we hold that good 

cause exists to suspend rule 42.2(a) in this case. See Tex. R. App. P. 2; Robertson v. State, 

No. 01-11-00743-CR, 2012 WL 5285913, at *1 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Oct. 

25, 2012, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication); Lawson v. State, No. 02-

06-00204-CR, 2007 WL 495165, at *1 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Feb. 15, 2007, no 

pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication). As Detwiler stated and as the trial 

court found, we hold that Detwiler does not want to pursue this appeal.

Thus, we dismiss this appeal. See also Fountain v. State, Nos. 02-14-00341-CR, 

02-14-00342-CR, 2015 WL 3637961, at *1 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth June 11, 2015, no 

pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication); Wilson v. State, No. 02-13-00210-CR, 

2014 WL 1394628, at *1 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Apr. 10, 2014, no pet.) (mem. op., 

not designated for publication); Palmer v. State, No. 02-12-000569-CR, 2013 WL 

6147836, at *1 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Nov. 21, 2013, no pet.) (mem. op., not 

designated for publication).

/s/ Elizabeth Kerr

Elizabeth Kerr

Justice

Do Not Publish

Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)

Delivered: February 28, 2019