Carlos Otilio Gonzalez v. The State of Texas Appeal from 187th District Court of Bexar County (memorandum opinion per curiam)

Annotate this Case
Download PDF
In The Court of Appeals Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo ________________________ Nos. 07-19-00021-CR 07-19-00022-CR ________________________ CARLOS OTILIO GONZALEZ, APPELLANT V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE On Appeal from the 187th District Court Bexar County, Texas Trial Court Nos. 2010CR6300A & 2010CR6301A; Honorable Joey Contreras, Presiding April 25, 2019 MEMORANDUM OPINION Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and PIRTLE, JJ. In 2011, Appellant, Carlos Otilio Gonzalez, was granted deferred adjudication community supervision for five years and assessed a $1,500 fine for two offenses of burglary of a habitation.1 In 2016, the trial court adjudicated Appellant guilty of the offenses, sentenced Appellant to ten years confinement, and assessed a fine of $1,500 1 TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 30.02(a), (c)(2) (West Supp. 2018). for each offense. The trial court suspended the sentences in favor of community supervision for five years. In 2018, the State moved to revoke Appellant’s community supervision based on his violations of its terms and conditions. Appellant pleaded true to the State’s allegations, and the trial court revoked his community supervision. Appellant was sentenced to six years confinement and assessed a $1,500 fine for each offense, with the sentences to run concurrently. Appellant filed a notice of appeal in both causes, proceeding pro se. On February 20, 2019, we abated the appeals and remanded the causes to the trial court to determine (1) whether Appellant still desired to prosecute the appeals, (2) whether Appellant was indigent and entitled to appointed counsel, and (3) whether Appellant was entitled to have the reporter’s record furnished without charge. The trial court held a hearing on April 10, 2019. At the hearing, Appellant notified the trial court that he no longer wished to pursue the appeals. The trial court entered findings of fact and conclusions of law providing same. Because Appellant no longer desires to prosecute the appeals, we invoke Appellate Rule 2 to suspend operation of Appellate Rule 42.2(a), which requires that Appellant and his attorney sign a motion to dismiss. See TEX. R. APP. P. 2, 42.2(a). Accordingly, the appeals are dismissed. No motion for rehearing will be entertained and our mandates will issue forthwith. It is so ordered. Per Curiam Do not publish. 2