JUAN MANUEL LEDESMA v. THE STATE OF TEXAS--Appeal from 139th District Court of Hidalgo County
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NUMBER 13-09-00663-CR COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG ____________________________________________________________ JUAN MANUEL LEDESMA, Appellant, v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee. ____________________________________________________________ On Appeal from the 139th District Court of Hidalgo County, Texas. ____________________________________________________________ MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Benavides and Vela Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam Appellant, Juan Manuel Ledesma, was convicted of aggravated sexual assault and has filed an appeal of the trial court s denial of his request for exemption from the requirement to register as a sex offender. On March 24, 2010, appellant s appointed counsel filed an Anders brief in which he asserts there are no meritorious issues to raise on appeal. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Counsel also filed a motion to withdraw as counsel and has provided appellant with the brief and has informed him of his right to file his own brief and his right to obtain and review the record. On April 7, 2010, appellant filed a pro se motion to withdraw his notice of appeal. Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 42.2(a) requires that both the appellant and his attorney sign a motion seeking voluntary dismissal of a criminal appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.2(a). Although appellant s counsel has not signed the motion, he has fulfilled his duties as court-appointed counsel on appeal. Based upon all of the documents filed in this case, we conclude that good cause exists to suspend the operation of Rule 42.2(a) in this case. See TEX. R. APP. P. 2. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal. Appellant counsel s motion to withdraw as counsel is GRANTED. Other pending motions are dismissed as moot. PER CURIAM Do not publish. See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b). Delivered and filed the 6th day of May, 2010. 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.
