Marvin Howard v. State










In The

Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana


______________________________


No. 06-05-00268-CR

______________________________



MARVIN JOE HOWARD, Appellant

 

V.

 

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee



                                              


On Appeal from the 354th Judicial District Court

Hunt County, Texas

Trial Court No. 22,456



                                                 




Before Morriss, C.J., Ross and Carter, JJ.

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Carter



MEMORANDUM OPINION


            Appellant, Marvin Joe Howard, has filed with this Court a motion to withdraw his notice of appeal and dismiss his pending appeal in this matter pursuant to Rule 42.2(a) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.2(a). The motion is signed by Howard and his counsel.

            We grant Howard's motion and dismiss the appeal.

 


                                                                        Jack Carter

                                                                        Justice

 

Date Submitted:          January 24, 2006

Date Decided:             January 25, 2006


Do Not Publish

PAN STYLE="font-family: Arial">Date Decided: June 14, 2007



Do Not Publish





1. See Tex. Health & Safety Code Ann. § 481.121(b)(3) (Vernon 2003).

2. Similarly, other offenses in the Texas Penal Code place the burden of proof on the defendant to prove certain issues by a preponderance of the evidence at the punishment phase of trial, and a type of sufficiency review is also appropriate for those issues--for example, release of a kidnapping victim in a safe place. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 20.04(d) (Vernon 2003); Cleveland v. State, 177 S.W.3d 374, 385 (Tex. App.--Houston [1st Dist.] 2005, pet. ref'd), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 126 S. Ct. 1774 (2006).

3. See, e.g., McGinn v. State, 961 S.W.2d 161, 169 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998).

4.

See Hyde v. State, 723 S.W.2d 754, 755 (Tex. App.--Texarkana 1986, no pet.) (holding that we had no authority to review the reasonableness of punishments assessed by the juries and the trial courts of this State if within the range of punishment prescribed by statute for the offense, except under a disproportionality analysis).