Court Opinion

ID: 3079088
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-10-16 01:41:30.718148+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:26:51.110742
License: Public Domain

NUMBER 13-13-00700-CR

                            COURT OF APPEALS

                  THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

                     CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG
____________________________________________________________

EDGAR CASTILLO LOPEZ,                                                        Appellant,

                                           v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,                                 Appellee.
____________________________________________________________

          On appeal from the County Court at Law No. 7
                   of Hidalgo County, Texas.
____________________________________________________________

                          MEMORANDUM OPINION

     Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Garza and Longoria
                  Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam

      Appellant, Edgar Castillo Lopez, was convicted of indecent exposure.             On

December 11, 2013, appellant filed a notice of appeal.       Appellant’s court-appointed

counsel filed an Anders brief and a motion to withdraw in this cause. See Anders v.

California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967). Counsel notified this Court that appellant could not

be located so the documents could not be served on appellant.
       On July 29, 2014, this Court abated the appeal and ordered the trial court to

determine whether appellant desired to prosecute this appeal. A supplemental clerk’s

record was filed on September 30, 2014, containing the trial court’s findings and

recommendations. Accordingly, this case is REINSTATED.

       The trial court made findings that appellant cannot be located, that appellant has

been deported and/or voluntarily removed himself from the United States to the country

of Mexico, and that appellant has abandoned his appeal.               Based upon the

recommendation of the trial court that appellant has abandoned his appeal, we conclude

that good cause exists to suspend the operation of Rule 42.2(a) in this case. See TEX.

R. APP. P. 2. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal. Any pending motions are dismissed

as moot.

                                                      PER CURIAM

Do not publish.
TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).

Delivered and filed the
9th day of October, 2014.