Patricia Lynn Kyles v. The State of Texas--Appeal from Criminal District Court of Jefferson County
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NO. 07-02-0464-CR
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
AT AMARILLO
PANEL E
MARCH 10, 2003
______________________________
PATRICIA LYNN KYLES,
Appellant
v.
THE STATE OF TEXAS,
Appellee
_________________________________
FROM THE CRIMINAL DISTRICT COURT OF JEFFERSON COUNTY;
NO. 86473; HON. CHARLES D. CARVER, PRESIDING
_______________________________
Before QUINN and CAMPBELL, JJ. and BOYD, S.J.*
Patricia Lynn Kyles (appellant) appeals her conviction for misdemeanor theft. The
clerk’s record was filed on October 15, 2002. The reporter’s record was filed on December
12, 2002. Thus, appellant’s brief was due on January 13, 2003. However, one was not
filed on that date. By letter dated January 21, 2003, we notified appellant’s counsel,
Norman Desmarais, of the expired deadline and directed him to respond to our notification
of same by Friday, January 31, 2003, or the appeal would be abated to the trial court
*
John T. Boyd, Chief Justice (Ret.), Seventh Cou rt of Appeals, sitting by assignment. Tex. Gov’t Code
Ann. §75.00 2(a)(1) (V erno n Su pp. 2003 ).
pursuant to TEX . R. APP. P. 38.8. January 31, 2003, passed without appellant submitting
any response to our notice.
Consequently, we abated this appeal and remanded the cause to the Criminal
District Court of Jefferson County (trial court) and directed that it conduct a hearing to
assess, among other things, whether the appellant desired to prosecute the appeal. At
that hearing, appellant informed the trial court that she no longer did. Furthermore,
appellant’s representations were contained in a supplemental clerk’s record which was filed
on March 5, 2003.
Although we have no motion to dismiss before us as required by Texas Rule of
Appellate Procedure 42.2(a), Rule 2 of the same rules permits us to suspend the operation
of an existing rule. TEX . R. APP. P. 2; see Rodriguez v. State, 970 S.W.2d 133, 135 (Tex.
App.—Amarillo 1998, pet. ref’d). Therefore, pursuant to Rule 2, and because appellant
has clearly revealed her desire to forego appeal, we suspend Rule 42.2(a) and dismiss the
appeal based upon appellant’s representation to the trial court.
Having so dismissed the appeal, no motion for rehearing will be entertained, and our
mandate will issue forthwith.
Brian Quinn
Justice
Do not publish.
2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
