Court Opinion

ID: 9380507
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-20 10:07:01.438369+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:25.546825
License: Public Domain

Opinion issued March 16, 2023

                                       In The

                                Court of Appeals
                                      For The

                           First District of Texas
                              ————————————
                               NO. 01-22-00379-CR
                             ———————————
                          JAVIER MORENO, Appellant
                                          V.
                       THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

                    On Appeal from the 412th District Court
                           Brazoria County, Texas
                        Trial Court Case No. 73664-A

                           MEMORANDUM OPINION

      After appellant, Javier Moreno, pleaded guilty to the felony offense of

indecency with a child,1 the trial court deferred adjudication of appellant’s guilt and

placed him on community supervision for ten years. The State, alleging numerous

1
      See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 21.11.
violations of the conditions of appellant’s community supervision, subsequently

moved to adjudicate his guilt. After a hearing, the trial court found numerous

allegations true, found appellant guilty, and assessed his punishment at confinement

for twenty years. The trial court’s Judgment was entered on May 17, 2022.

Appellant timely filed a notice of appeal.

      Appellant’s brief was due to be filed with this Court on July 20, 2022. See

TEX. R. APP. P. 38.6(a). Appellant failed to timely file his brief. On August 22,

2022, the Clerk of this Court notified appellant’s court-appointed appellate counsel,

Michael C. Diaz, that the time for filing a brief had passed and, unless the Court

received a motion for extension of time, with appellant’s brief, or a motion for

extension of time by September 1, 2022, the Court would be required to abate the

appeal and remand for the trial court to hold a hearing pursuant to Texas Rule of

Appellate Procedure 38.8. See TEX. R. APP. P. 10.5(b), 38.8(b)(2). No response was

received, and no brief was filed.

      Accordingly, on February 14, 2023, the Court abated this appeal and

remanded the case to the trial court to hold a hearing to determine, among other

things, whether appellant wished to prosecute his appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P.

38.8(b)(3). On March 6, 2023, the trial court held an abatement hearing at which

appellant, his court-appointed appellate counsel, and the State were present. Also

                                             2
on March 6, 2023, a supplemental reporter’s record, including a stenographic

transcript of the abatement hearing, was filed with this Court.

      During the abatement hearing, the trial court noted that the case was remanded

to “conduct a hearing about [appellant’s] desire to appeal or not appeal.” After

swearing in appellant, the trial court directed questioning to appellant, asking

appellant if it was “correct” that he “no longer wish[ed] or desire[d] to prosecute the

appeal in” the underlying trial court case. Appellant responded “[y]es” to the trial

court’s question, confirming that he no longer wished to prosecute this appeal.

      Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 42.2 states that an appellant and his

attorney “must sign” a motion to dismiss a criminal appeal. TEX. R. APP. P. 42.2(a).

Appellant has not filed a motion to dismiss.        However, based on appellant’s

statements on the record at the abatement hearing, we conclude that good cause

exists to suspend the operation of rule 42 and to construe the abatement record as

appellant’s motion to dismiss his appeal. TEX. R. APP. P. 2, 42; Conners v. State,

966 S.W.2d 108, 110–11 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1998, pet. ref’d); see, e.g.,

Truong v. State, No. 01-17-00343-CR, 2018 WL 1630177, at *1 (Tex. App.—

Houston [1st Dist.] Apr. 5, 2018, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication)

(suspending operation of rule 42 and construing abatement record as appellant’s

motion to dismiss appeal); Luviano v. State, No. 01-09-00755-CR, 2011 WL

5428964, at *1 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Nov. 10, 2011, no pet.) (mem. op.,

                                          3
not designated for publication) (concluding appellant’s statements provided good

cause to suspend rule 42 requirement that appellant sign motion to dismiss and

dismissing appeal). We have not yet issued a decision in the appeal. See TEX. R.

APP. P. 42.2(b).

        Accordingly, we reinstate the appeal, grant appellant’s motion, and dismiss

the appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 43.2(f). We dismiss all other pending motions as

moot.

                                  PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Landau, Countiss, and Guerra.

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

                                           4