Court Opinion

ID: 3124962
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-10-16 15:01:00.78606+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:54:35.653307
License: Public Domain

NUMBER 13-09-00663-CR

                             COURT OF APPEALS

                  THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

                     CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG
____________________________________________________________

JUAN MANUEL LEDESMA,                                                          Appellant,

                                           v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,                                  Appellee.
____________________________________________________________

              On Appeal from the 139th District Court
                    of Hidalgo County, Texas.
____________________________________________________________

                            MEMORANDUM OPINION

        Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Benavides and Vela
                     Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam

      Appellant, Juan Manuel Ledesma, was convicted of aggravated sexual assault

and has filed an appeal of the trial court’s denial of his request for exemption from the

requirement to register as a sex offender. On March 24, 2010, appellant’s appointed

counsel filed an Anders brief in which he asserts there are no meritorious issues to raise
on appeal. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Counsel also filed a motion

to withdraw as counsel and has provided appellant with the brief and has informed him of

his right to file his own brief and his right to obtain and review the record. On April 7,

2010, appellant filed a pro se motion to withdraw his notice of appeal.

      Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 42.2(a) requires that both the appellant and his

attorney sign a motion seeking voluntary dismissal of a criminal appeal. See TEX. R.

APP. P. 42.2(a). Although appellant’s counsel has not signed the motion, he has fulfilled

his duties as court-appointed counsel on appeal. Based upon all of the documents filed

in this case, 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.

      Appellant counsel’s motion to withdraw as counsel is GRANTED. Other pending

motions are dismissed as moot.

                                                       PER CURIAM

Do not publish.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

Delivered and filed the
6th day of May, 2010.

                                            2