Court Opinion

ID: 3107200
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-10-16 06:12:07.323538+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:27:31.310194
License: Public Domain

NUMBER
13-10-00403-CR
 
                                 COURT
OF APPEALS
 
                     THIRTEENTH
DISTRICT OF TEXAS
 
                         CORPUS
CHRISTI - EDINBURG
____________________________________________________________
 
JACOB
MORALES,                                                                       Appellant,
 
                                                             v.
 
THE
STATE OF TEXAS,                                                                 Appellee.
____________________________________________________________
 
                            On
appeal from the 36th District Court 
of San Patricio
County, Texas.
____________________________________________________________
 
                                      MEMORANDUM OPINION
 
 Before
Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Rodriguez and Benavides
                               Memorandum
Opinion Per Curiam
 
Appellant,
Jacob Morales, was convicted of possession with intent to deliver cocaine.  On July
29, 2010, appellant filed a pro se notice of appeal.  Appellant’s appointed
counsel in the trial court advised this Court that he was not retained or
appointed to represent appellant on appeal.  On February 10, 2011, this Court
abated the appeal and ordered the trial court to determine whether appellant desired
to prosecute this appeal and whether appellant is indigent and entitled to
court-appointed counsel.

At
the trial court hearing, appellant stated that he did not wish to continue with
his appeal and wanted to withdraw his appeal.  Appellant’s trial court counsel
has filed motion to dismiss the appeal that does not contain the appellant’s
signature.  See Tex. R. App. P.
42.2 (a).  Although no written motion has been filed in compliance with Rule
42.2(a) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, we conclude that good cause
exists to suspend the operation of Rule 42.2(a) in this case in accordance with
Rule 2.  See Tex. R. App. P.
2.  Accordingly, the motion to dismiss is GRANTED and the appeal is DISMISSED. 
  
 
PER
CURIAM
 
Do not publish.
See Tex. R. App. P.
47.2(b).  
Delivered and filed the
24th day of March, 2011.