Matthew Thomas Garrett v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 239th District Court of Brazoria County
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Opinion issued November 20, 2008 In The Court of Appeals For The First District of Texas ____________ NOS. 01-06-01171-CR 01-06-01172-CR 01-06-01173-CR ____________ MATTHEW THOMAS GARRETT, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 239th District Court Brazoria County, Texas Trial Court Cause Nos. 42960, 42961 and 42962 MEMORANDUM OPINION On August 28, 2008, we abated the above-referenced cases and ordered a hearing in the trial court. Among the issues the trial judge was to consider was whether appellant desired to prosecute these appeals. The trial court conducted a hearing on September 25, 2008, and a reporter s record of that hearing has been filed with the Clerk of this Court. During the hearing, appellant stated to the Court that he did not wish to pursue his appeals, and the trial court made a finding that Mr. Garrett does not want to proceed with his appeals in cause numbers 01-06-01171-CR, 01-0601172-CR, and 01-06-01173-CR. We order the appeals reinstated. On September 2, 2008, appellant filed with the Clerk of this Court a written motion to dismiss the appeals in cause numbers 01-06-01171-CR and 01-06-01172CR. The motion complies with the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.2(a). The motion is granted. We note that the record before this Court does not include a written motion to dismiss appellate cause number 01-06-01173-CR. However, given appellant s expressed desire to forego pursuit of all of three of his appeals, we conclude that good cause exists to suspend the operation of Rule 42.2(a), in accordance with Rule 2. See TEX. R. APP. P. 2. We have not yet issued a decision in these cases. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeals in cause numbers 01-06-01171-CR, 01-06-01172-CR and 01-06-01173-CR. The Clerk of this Court is directed to issue the mandates. TEX. R. APP. P. 18.1. 2 PER CURIAM Panel consists of Chief Justice Radack, and Justices Nuchia and Higley. Do not publish. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b). 3
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.
