The State of Texas v. Larry Jason Cervantes--Appeal from County Criminal Court No. 4 of Denton County

State: Texas

Court: Texas Northern District Court

Docket No: 02-04-00371-CR

Case Date: 11/24/2004

Plaintiff: Arthur I. Patton

Defendant: The State of Texas--Appeal from County Criminal Court at Law No 7 of Harris County

Preview:Arthur I. Patton v. The State of Texas--Appeal from
County Criminal Court at Law No 7 of Harris County
MEMORANDUM OPINION
No. 04-03-00113-CR
Arthur I. PATTON,
Appellant
v.
The STATE of Texas,
Appellee
From the County Criminal Court at Law No. 7, Harris County, Texas
Trial Court No. 1124923
Honorable Pam Derbyshire, Judge Presiding
PER CURIAM
Sitting: Alma L. L pez, Chief Justice
Catherine Stone, Justice
Paul W. Green, Justice
Delivered and Filed: May 21, 2003
DISMISSED
On April 3, 2003, we abated this appeal to the trial court and ordered the trial court to conduct a hearing to answer the
following questions: (1) Does appellant desire to prosecute his appeal?; (2) Is appellant indigent?; and (3) Has
appointed or retained counsel abandoned the appeal? The trial court conducted a hearing and issued the following
findings: (1) appellant posted an appeal bond on December 10, 2002; (2) appellant's appeal bond was revoked and a
warrant was issued for appellant's arrest on March 19, 2003, after appellant failed to comply with the conditions of the
appeal bond; (3) appellant is presently a fugitive; and (4) appellant's counsel was permitted to withdraw on April 14,
2003. The trial court concluded that appellant has abandoned his appeal and recommended that we dismiss the appeal.
Rule 42.4 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure permits this court to dismiss an appeal in a criminal case "on the
State's motion, supported by affidavit, showing that the appellant has escaped from custody pending the appeal and
that to affiant's knowledge, the appellant has not, within ten days after escaping, voluntarily returned to lawful custody
within the state." Tex. R. App. P. 42.4. In this case, the trial court's findings of fact and conclusions of law are
sufficient to satisfy the motion and affidavit requirement of rule 42.4. See Tex. R. App. P. 2 (permitting court to
suspend a rule's operation and order a different procedure to expedite a decision or for other good cause). In addition,
appellant's non-compliance with his appeal bond resulting in the issuance of a warrant for his arrest is a sufficient
escape from custody to trigger the involuntary dismissal provision of rule 42.4. See Boyd v. State, 53 S.W.3d 432, 433
(Tex. App.--San Antonio 2001, no pet.) (holding appellant's mailing of her electronic monitoring system to her
probation officer was a sufficient escape from custody). This appeal is dismissed.
PER CURIAM
DO NOT PUBLISH
file:///C|/Users/Peter/Desktop/opinions/PDFs1/16111.html[8/20/2013 7:38:32 PM]

Download 16111.pdf