## In T he Court of Appeals Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo

No. 07 - 22 - 00356 - CR MAX ANDREW SOTO , A PPELLANT V. THE STATE OF TEXAS , APPELLEE On Appeal from the County Court Hale County, Texas Trial Court No . 2021C - 463 , Honorable David B. Mull , Presiding



### August 28 , 2023 MEMORANDUM OPINION Before QUINN, C.J., and DOSS and YARBROUGH, JJ. Appellant , Max Andrew Soto, appeals his conviction for unlawful carrying of a weapon. 1 We remanded the appeal on May 22, 2023 , for the trial court to determine, among other things, whether Appellant still desire d to prosecute the appeal and why Appellant’s appointed counsel ha d not filed an appellate brief. We directed the trial court , upon remand, to issue findings of fact on t hese matters, and others, and to file the findings

1 See T EX . P ENAL C ODE A NN . § 46.02.2

in a supplemental record by June 21, 2023. No supplemental record was filed by this deadline. On August 22, 2023, we received a supplemental clerk’s record . The record did not include any trial court o rders or findings. Instead, it contain ed a copy of an email exchange between Appellant’s counsel, counsel for the State, and the trial court’s coordinator

. The email s indicate that the trial court scheduled a remand hearing for J une 20 , 2023
. On June 13 , 2023, Appellant’s counsel emailed both the trial court and the State that his “ client no longer wishes to pursue th is appeal ” and that Appellant will sign and file a motion to dismiss. To date, we have received no orders or findings from the trial court , Appellant’s brief, or a motion to dismiss filed by Appellant. This Court has given Appellant ’s counsel multiple opportunities to file a brief and, via a remand order, an opportunity to appear before the trial court to provide an explanation for the lat e brief

. Prior to the remand hearing, Appellant’s counsel notified the trial court that A ppellant no longer desire d to prosecute the appeal. Consequently,
w e now invoke Rule 2 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure, as well as our inherent authority to control the disposition of causes on our docket, reinstate the appeal, and dismiss it for Appellant ’ s want of prosecution and based on Appellant’ s counsel ’s repre sentation to the trial court that Appellant will not pursue the appeal

. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 2 (permitting an appellate court to suspend a rules operation in a particular case and order a different procedure for good cause) , 42. 2(a) (concerning voluntary d ismissals in criminal cases) , 42.3(b ); Brager v. State , No. 0365 - 03, 2004 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 2203, at *3 , 10 (Tex. Crim. App. Oct. 13, 2004) (en banc) (not designated for publication) (recognizing a n appellate court ’ s inherent power to dismiss a crimina l appeal where a3

party has failed to prosecute his action ); Rodriguez v. State , 970 S.W.2d 133, 135 (Tex. App.
— Amarillo 1998, pet. ref ’ d) (dismissing criminal appeal for want of prosecution); see also Balderas v. State , No. 07 - 03 - 00 0 13 - CR, 2003 Tex. App. LEXIS 5534, at *2 (Tex. App.
— Amarillo July 1, 2003, no pet.) (dismissing appeal , after remand, based on appellant ’s representation s to the trial court that he desired to forgo the appeal). Accordingly, t he appeal is dismissed. Per Curiam Do n ot publish.