Background
LaTerrance Charles Brooks pleaded guilty to injury to a child with intent to cause bodily injury, a third-degree felony. The trial court sentenced him to eight years’ imprisonment in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice.
After Brooks told his court-appointed attorney that he did not wish to continue the appeal, counsel moved to abate the case. At the resulting hearing, Brooks stated under oath that he had elected not to proceed, was giving up his right to appeal, and intended to serve his sentence and return to the community. The trial court found that Brooks wanted to dismiss the appeal voluntarily, and the court of appeals reinstated the case.
Counsel then moved to dismiss, but Brooks had not signed the motion as Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 42.2(a) requires. Because the appeal had been transferred from the Second Court of Appeals under a docket-equalization order, the Eleventh Court applied Second Court precedent where applicable.
The Court’s Holding
The Eleventh Court held that good cause existed under Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 2 to suspend Rule 42.2(a)’s appellant-signature requirement. It relied on Brooks’s unequivocal sworn statements that he did not wish to pursue the appeal and on the trial court’s order finding that he wanted to dismiss it voluntarily.
Following the Second Court of Appeals’ practice in comparable cases, the court granted Brooks’s motion and dismissed the appeal despite the absence of his signature on the motion. The memorandum opinion was designated “Do not publish.”
Key Takeaways
- An appellate court may suspend Rule 42.2(a)’s appellant-signature requirement for good cause under Rule 2.
- Brooks’s sworn statements and the trial court’s finding established that he unequivocally wanted to abandon the appeal.
- The court dismissed the appeal without deciding the merits of Brooks’s conviction or sentence.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates how a Texas appellate court may address a procedurally deficient dismissal motion when the record clearly establishes the appellant’s desire not to continue. A sworn statement at an abatement hearing, reinforced by a trial-court finding, can supply good cause to suspend the signature requirement in a particular case.