Rondell Smith v. The State of Texas--Appeal from Criminal District Court No. 3 of Tarrant County

COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 2-07-029-CR

RONDELL SMITH APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE

------------

FROM CRIMINAL DISTRICT COURT NO. 3 OF TARRANT COUNTY

------------

MEMORANDUM OPINION[1] AND JUDGMENT

------------

We have considered the AMotion to Withdraw@ filed by Appellant Rondell Smith, pro se. The motion was signed by Appellant only and not by his appointed counsel; therefore, the motion does not comply with rule 42.2(a). See Tex. R. App. P. 42.2(a) (AThe appellant and his or her attorney must sign the motion to dismiss . . . .). But Appellant=s appointed counsel filed a motion to withdraw and a supporting brief, stating that the appeal is frivolous under the guidelines established by Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396 (1967). Thus, on our own initiative and for good cause, we suspend Rule 42.2(a)=s requirement that the motion be signed by Appellant=s attorney. See Tex. R. App. P. 2 (A[O]n its own initiative an appellate court mayCto expedite a decision or for other good causeCsuspend a rule=s operation in a particular case . . . .@).

We did not deliver a decision before we received Appellant=s motion. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.2(a). Therefore, we grant the motion and dismiss the appeal.[2] See Tex. R. App. P. 42.2(a), 43.2(f).

PER CURIAM

PANEL D: GARDNER, WALKER, and MCCOY, JJ.

DO NOT PUBLISH

Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)

DELIVERED: June 14, 2007

[1]See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.

[2]Because Appellant had voluntarily withdrawn his notice of appeal, we need not address counsel=s motion to withdraw.