Court Opinion

ID: 3087945
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-10-16 03:20:04.590719+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:46:51.828286
License: Public Domain

NUMBER 13-13-00439-CR

                            COURT OF APPEALS

                  THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

                     CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG
____________________________________________________________

ARLENE LAURELES,                                                            Appellant,

                                           v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,                                 Appellee.
____________________________________________________________

          On appeal from the County Court at Law No. 2
                   of Nueces County, Texas.
____________________________________________________________

                          MEMORANDUM OPINION

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

      Appellant, Arlene Laureles, was convicted of driving while intoxicated. On July

26, 2013, appellant filed a notice of appeal. Appointed counsel filed a motion to withdraw

as counsel and on August 27, 2013, this Court abated the appeal to determine whether

appellant’s court-appointed attorney should remain as appellant's counsel; and, if not,

whether appellant is entitled to new appointed counsel.
      Appellant appeared at the trial court hearing and explained that she did not intend

to pursue the appeal of her conviction for driving while intoxicated.     Based on the

hearing, the trial court found no reason to appoint substitute counsel and no reason for

appointed counsel to remain as counsel.        Counsel’s motion to withdraw, previously

carried with the case, is hereby GRANTED.

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

Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, based upon the evidence at the hearing that

appellant does not want to continue her 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Do not publish.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
24th day of October, 2013.

                                           2