Ignacio Lara Luciano v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 64th District Court of Hale County
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NO. 07-02-0403-CR
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
AT AMARILLO
PANEL E
APRIL 7, 2003
______________________________
IGNACIO LARA LUCIANO,
Appellant
v.
THE STATE OF TEXAS,
Appellee
_________________________________
FROM THE 64TH DISTRICT COURT OF HALE COUNTY;
NO. A13258-9812; HON. JACK R. MILLER, PRESIDING
_______________________________
Before JOHNSON, C.J., QUINN, J., and BOYD, S.J.1
Ignacio Lara Luciano (appellant) appeals pro se his conviction for tampering with
governmental records. The clerk’s record was filed on November 18, 2002. The reporter’s
record was filed on January 15, 2003. Thus, appellant’s brief was due on February 14,
2003. However, one was not filed on that date. By letter dated February 24, 2003, we
notified appellant of the expired deadline and directed him to respond to our notification
of same by Thursday, March 6, 2003, or the appeal would be abated to the trial court
1
John T. Boyd, Chief Justice (Ret.), Seventh Court of Appeals, sitting by assignment. Tex. Gov’t
Code Ann. §75.002(a)(1) (Vernon Supp. 2003).
pursuant to TEX . R. APP . P. 38.8. March 6, 2003, passed without appellant submitting any
response to our notice.
Consequently, we abated this appeal and remanded the cause to the 64th District
Court of Hale 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 he no longer did.
Furthermore, appellant’s
representations were contained in a supplemental clerk’s record which was filed on April
3, 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 his 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Do not publish.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.
