Court Opinion

ID: 4097147
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2016-11-10 05:08:12.674663+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:08:56.851839
License: Public Domain

NUMBERS 13-15-00566-CR AND 13-15-00567-CR

                                    COURT OF APPEALS

                        THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

                           CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG
____________________________________________________________

MONTY SHOOPMAN,                                                             Appellant,

                                                      v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,                                 Appellee.
____________________________________________________________

              On appeal from the 94th District Court
                   of Nueces County, Texas.
____________________________________________________________

                                 MEMORANDUM OPINION

                     Before Justices Garza, Perkes, and Longoria
                          Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam

          Appellant, Monty Shoopman, was convicted of possession of cocaine.          On

October 21, 2015, appellant filed notices of appeal by and through his attorney. Counsel

for appellant subsequently filed Anders 1 briefs in these causes.       The briefs and

documents addressed to appellant were returned to counsel as undeliverable and

counsel notified this Court that appellant had been released from incarceration and could

1   Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967).
not be located.

      On September 27, 2016, this Court abated the appeals and ordered the trial court

to determine whether appellant can be located and whether he desires to prosecute the

appeals.   Based on the trial court hearing, the trial court judge found credible the

representations of counsel that he has been unable to locate appellant and that appellant

has abandoned his appeals.

      Although no written motion has been filed in compliance with Rule 42.2(a) of the

Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, based upon the findings of the trial court that

appellant abandoned his appeals, we conclude that good cause exists to suspend the

operation of Rule 42.2(a) in these cases. See TEX. R. APP. P. 2.        Accordingly, we

reinstate these cases and we dismiss the appeals. Any pending motions are dismissed

as moot.

                                                      PER CURIAM

Do not publish.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

Delivered and filed the
3rd day of November, 2016.

                                           2