Court Opinion

ID: 3108452
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-10-16 06:20:33.235593+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:26:25.855982
License: Public Domain

NUMBER
13-10-00334-CR
 
                                 COURT
OF APPEALS
 
                     THIRTEENTH
DISTRICT OF TEXAS
 
                         CORPUS
CHRISTI - EDINBURG
____________________________________________________________
 
NOE
NOYOLA,                                                                               Appellant,
 
                                                             v.
 
THE
STATE OF TEXAS,                                                                 Appellee.
____________________________________________________________
 
                           On
appeal from the 105th District Court 
of Nueces County,
Texas.
____________________________________________________________
 
                                      MEMORANDUM OPINION
 
    Before
Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Rodriguez and Perkes
                               Memorandum
Opinion Per Curiam
 
Appellant,
Noe Noyola, was convicted of possession of cocaine.  On June 18, 2010,
appellant filed a pro se notice of appeal.  On August 31, 2010, this Court
abated the appeal and remanded to the trial court because appointed counsel,
the Honorable Deeanne S. Galvan, advised this Court that she no longer
represented appellant and the record failed to indicate whether appellant was
entitled to appointed counsel on appeal.  

 
At
the trial court hearing, appellant appeared with retained counsel, the
Honorable Dee Ann Torres, and stated that he did not desire to prosecute an
appeal in this cause.  At the hearing it was established that neither Ms.
Galvan nor Ms. Torres filed a notice of appeal on behalf of appellant and that
appellant has chosen not to pursue an appeal.
Based
upon the evidence at the hearing that appellant does not want to pursue an 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.
 
PER
CURIAM
Do not
publish.  See Tex. R. App. P.
47.2(b).  
Delivered and filed the 3rd
day of February, 2011.