NO. 07-00-0311-CR
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
AT AMARILLO
PANEL A
NOVEMBER 7, 2001
______________________________
JORGE ANTONIO GONZALEZ, APPELLANT
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE
_________________________________
FROM THE 262ND DISTRICT COURT OF HARRIS COUNTY;
NO. 829,236; HONORABLE WILLIAM M. HATTEN, JUDGE
_______________________________
Before BOYD, C.J., and REAVIS and JOHNSON, JJ.
DISMISSAL
Pending before this Court is appellant’s pro se request to dismiss his appeal. Rule
42.2(a) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure provides that an appeal may be
dismissed if appellant withdraws his notice of appeal by his signed motion accompanied
by the signature of his attorney. However, Rule 2 of the Texas Rules of Appellate
Procedure grants us the authority to suspend the operation of an existing rule and in its
place order a different procedure which addresses unforeseen circumstances. See
Rodriguez v. State, 970 S.W.2d 133, 135 (Tex.App.--Amarillo 1998, pet. ref’d). An
accused has the ultimate authority to make certain fundamental decisions regarding his
case, including whether to prosecute an appeal. See Conners v. State, 966 S.W.2d 108
(Tex.App.--Houston [1st Dist.] 1998, pet. ref’d), citing Jones v. Barnes, 463 U.S. 745, 103
S.Ct. 3308, 77 L.Ed.2d 987 (1983). Thus, we suspend the operation of Rule 42.2(a) in this
case and dismiss the appeal based upon appellant’s clear intent not to pursue his appeal.
No decision of this Court having been delivered, we dismiss the appeal and no motion for
rehearing will be entertained and our mandate will issue forthwith.
Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
Don H. Reavis
Justice
Do not publish.
2