Background
Brytavion Rogers appealed five judgments of conviction in two cause numbers. The trial court imposed his sentences on January 21, 2026. The appeals came from the 361st District Court of Brazos County, Texas, with Judge David G. Hilburn presiding. The underlying trial court cause numbers were 24-01828-CRF-361 and 24-01829-CRF-361.
On October 30, 2026, Rogers filed a voluntary motion to dismiss the appeal in each appeal. The memorandum opinion states that the motions were signed by both Rogers and his attorney. The court cited Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 42.2(a) in connection with the motions and their signatures.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeals granted Rogers’s motions to dismiss and dismissed the appeals. The opinion states: “Rogers’s motions to dismiss these appeals are granted. Accordingly, these appeals are dismissed.” The court again cited Rule 42.2(a) with “Id.”
This is a concise Disposition notice because the public memorandum opinion gives the outcome and the basic procedural facts but no substantive analysis of the convictions, sentences, or any appellate issues. The opinion does not state the offenses, the lengths of the sentences, the grounds Rogers originally intended to raise, or any reason for his decision to seek dismissal beyond describing the motions as voluntary.
The opinion was delivered and filed on November 5, 2026. Chief Justice Johnson delivered the opinion of the Court, and the official “Before” line lists Chief Justice Johnson, Justice Harris, and Justice Westerfeld. The docket entries state “Appeals dismissed,” “Motions granted,” and “Do not publish.”
Key Takeaways
- The Tenth Court of Appeals dismissed both appeals after granting Rogers’s voluntary motions.
- The dismissal covered five judgments of conviction in two trial court cause numbers, not a ruling on the merits of those convictions.
- The opinion identifies Rule 42.2(a) and notes that Rogers and his attorney signed the motions, but it supplies no further legal reasoning.
- The appellate docket numbers are 10-26-00074-CR and 10-26-00075-CR; the opinion was marked “Do not publish.”
Why It Matters
The disposition ends Rogers’s two appeals by voluntary dismissal rather than by a decision affirming, reversing, or otherwise reviewing the judgments. Attorneys should therefore not treat the memorandum opinion as authority on the validity of the convictions, the sentences, or any potential appellate claims.
The opinion’s practical significance is procedural: it records that the required motions were filed, that they were signed by Rogers and counsel, and that the court granted them under Rule 42.2(a). No broader legal rule or claim-specific holding appears in the public opinion.