Rodrigo Rodriguez v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 106th District Court of Lynn County
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NO. 07-02-0089-CR
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
AT AMARILLO
PANEL C
JULY 10, 2002
______________________________
RODRIGO RODRIGUEZ,
Appellant
v.
THE STATE OF TEXAS,
Appellee
_________________________________
FROM THE 106TH DISTRICT COURT OF LYNN COUNTY;
NO. 94,2210-E; HON. GENE L. DULANEY, PRESIDING
_______________________________
DISMISSAL
_______________________________
Before QUINN, REAVIS, and JOHNSON, JJ.
Appellant, Rodrigo Rodriguez, appeals from a judgment revoking his community
supervision. Sentence was pronounced in open court on November 12, 2001. Thus, the
appellate record was due by March 19, 2002. TEX . R. APP . P. 35.2(a). Neither the clerk’s
record nor the reporter’s record has been received. Furthermore, according to the
reporter, the record has not been developed because: 1) he has not received a request
from the appellant to develop the record; 2) he has not received payment; 3) appellant has
not made arrangements to pay for same; and, 4) he did not receive a copy of the notice
of appeal.
Accordingly, the case was abated and remanded to the 106th District Court of Lynn
County (trial court) to determine if 1) appellant desired to prosecute the appeal; 2)
appellant was indigent; 3) counsel had been appointed to prosecute this appeal; 4)
appellant was entitled to appointed counsel; and 5) appellant was entitled to the
preparation of a free appellate record.
The trial court conducted the hearing and the supplemental clerk’s record was filed
on May 23, 2002. Thereafter, it found that appellant 1) wished to prosecute the appeal,
2) was not indigent, 3) was not entitled to appointed counsel, and 4) was able to pay for
the appellate record. So too did it find that the court reporter had not received a request
for the transcription of the record from appellant. Nor had the court clerk received a
designation of record on appeal from him.
Thereafter, the cause was reinstated. Notice was then sent, on June 19, 2002, to
appellant and appellant’s counsel directing appellant “to provide written proof that the
records have been requested and arrangements for payment have been made for same
pursuant to Tex. R. App. P. 35.3" and that such proof be received by the Court by July 8,
2002 or the cause would be dismissed per Rodriguez v. State, 970 S.W. 2d 133 (Tex. App.
-- Amarillo 1998, pet. ref’d). The deadline lapsed without appellant providing such notice.
Instead, his counsel moved to withdraw, contending that appellant “had not maintained
contact with the undersigned, paid attorney’s fees as agreed, or provided Attorney . . . with
the funds necessary for the preparation of the appellate record . . . .”
2
Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed for want of prosecution as per Rodriguez v.
State, supra, and the motion of counsel to withdraw is granted.
Per Curiam
Do not publish.
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.
