Juan Manuel Ledesma v. State

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

                                                             

                                       NUMBER 13-09-00663-CR

 

                                  COURT OF APPEALS

 

                      THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

 

                         CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

____________________________________________________________

 

JUAN MANUEL LEDESMA,                                                            Appellant,

 

                                                             v.

 

THE STATE OF TEXAS,                                                                  Appellee.

____________________________________________________________

 

                             On Appeal from the 139th District Court

                                        of Hidalgo County, Texas.

____________________________________________________________

 

                                       MEMORANDUM OPINION

 

         Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Benavides and Vela

                                 Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam

 


Appellant, Juan Manuel Ledesma, was convicted of aggravated sexual assault and has filed an appeal of the trial court’s denial of his request for exemption from the requirement to register as a sex offender.  On March 24, 2010, appellant’s appointed counsel filed an Anders brief in which he asserts there are no meritorious issues to raise on appeal.  See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967).  Counsel also filed a motion to withdraw as counsel and has provided appellant with the brief and has informed him of his right to file his own brief and his right to obtain and review the record.  On April 7, 2010, appellant filed a pro se motion to withdraw his notice of appeal. 

Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 42.2(a) requires that both the appellant and his attorney sign a motion seeking voluntary dismissal of a criminal appeal.  See Tex. R. App. P. 42.2(a).  Although appellant’s counsel has not signed the motion, he has fulfilled his duties as court-appointed counsel on appeal.  Based upon all of the documents filed in this case, 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.

Appellant counsel’s motion to withdraw as counsel is GRANTED.  Other pending motions are dismissed as moot.

 

PER CURIAM

 

Do not publish.  See Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b). 

Delivered and filed the

6th day of May, 2010.