Shea F. Raymond v. The State of Texas--Appeal from County Court at Law No 1 of Lubbock County
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NO. 07-07-0158-CR
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
AT AMARILLO
PANEL D
DECEMBER 11, 2007
______________________________
SHEA F. RAYMOND, APPELLANT
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE
_________________________________
FROM THE COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 1 OF LUBBOCK COUNTY;
NO. 2005-496,325; HONORABLE LARRY B. “RUSTY” LADD, JUDGE
_______________________________
Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and PIRTLE, JJ.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
On April 24, 2007, Appellant, Shea F. Raymond, filed his Notice of Appeal, by and
through retained counsel, David Martinez, complaining of the trial court’s Judgment convicting
him of the Class B Misdemeanor offense of Driving W hile Intoxicated. Thereafter, on August
7, 2007, this Court permitted Appellant’s counsel to withdraw. Subsequently, Appellant missed
several deadlines for the filing of his brief. Consequently, by order dated October 5, 2007, this
Court abated this appeal and remanded the cause to the trial court to determine why
Appellant had not filed a brief. The trial court was directed to determine (1) whether Appellant
still desired to prosecute this appeal, (2) whether he was indigent and entitled to appointed
counsel, and (3) if not indigent, whether Appellant had made necessary arrangements for
filing a brief. This Court’s order directed the trial court to file findings of fact and conclusions
of law and include them in a supplemental clerk’s record.
On November 6, 2007, a
supplemental reporter’s record of the abatement hearing was filed, but no supplemental
clerk’s record has been filed.
Upon inquiry by the Clerk of this Court regarding the status of the supplemental clerk’s
record, Court Reporter, Sandra Shannon, indicated that the trial court’s findings had been
dictated into the record. The reporter’s record does reflect that at the abatement hearing
conducted on October 31, 2007, Appellant, who was represented by new retained counsel,
unequivocally indicated he no longer wished to prosecute this appeal. Appellant’s intention
being clear, we invoke Rule 2 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure to suspend
operation of Rule 42.2(a), which requires that Appellant and his attorney sign a motion to
dismiss.
Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. The order of this Court directing the trial court
to file findings of fact and conclusions of law is hereby rendered moot.
Patrick A. Pirtle
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.
