Charles Harold Johnson, Jr. v. State, No. 01-17-00819-CR (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Dec. 11, 2018). · Go Syfert
Search
Charles Harold Johnson, Jr. v. State, No. 01-17-00819-CR (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Dec. 11, 2018). Book View Copy Cite
No syfertize treatment data for this case.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Charles Harold Johnson, Jr.
v.
State
01-17-00819-CR.
Court of Appeals of Texas.
Dec 11, 2018.
Unpublished opinion
Published
Opinion issued December 11, 2018

In The

Court of Appeals
For The

First District of Texas
————————————
NO. 01-17-00819-CR
NO. 01-17-00820-CR
———————————
CHARLES HAROLD JOHNSON, JR., Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 405th District Court
Galveston County, Texas
Trial Court Case Nos. 17-CR-0442 and 17-CR–0496

MEMORANDUM OPINION

A jury convicted appellant, Charles Harold Johnson, Jr., of the felony offense of unauthorized use of a motor vehicle1 in trial court case number 17-CR-0442, and questions from his counsel, appellant indicated that he did not “wish to continue.” Counsel then explained to appellant that he had two cases—“an unauthorized use” for which he “got five years from the jury” and “an evading with a motor vehicle” for “17 and a half,” and stated his understanding that appellant “wanted to pursue both of them.” When counsel asked, “Is that what you want to do today,” appellant answered “No.” Appellant did not wish “to appeal in either case” and wished “to sit out [his] time on—on both cases.” After the hearing, the trial court signed findings and conclusions in trial court case number 17-CR-0442: 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., not designated for publication) (concluding appellant’s statements at abatement hearing provided good cause to suspend rule 42 requirement that appellant sign motion to dismiss and dismissing appeal). We have not yet issued decisions in the appeals. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.2(b).

Accordingly, we grant the motions to dismiss and dismiss the appeals. See TEX. R. APP. P. 43.2(f). We dismiss all other pending motions as moot.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Higley, Lloyd, and Caughey. Do not publish. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).

1 Appellant does not wish to prosecute his appeal.
2 The Trial Court recommends that Appellant’s case be dismissed. Based on the trial court’s findings and conclusions, and appellant’s statements at the abatement hearing, appellant’s counsel has filed a motion to dismiss each appeal. Appellant has not signed either motion. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.2(a). Nevertheless, in light of appellant’s statements on the record at the abatement hearing, we conclude that good cause exists to suspend the operation of rule 42.2 in these appeals. See TEX. R. APP. P. 2, 42.2; 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);