Gregory Stringfellow v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 52nd District Court of Coryell County

Annotate this Case
Stringfellow-G v. State /**/




No. 10-95-316-CR









From the 52nd District Court

Coryell County, Texas

Trial Court # 13,669




Gregory Stringfellow pled guilty to one count of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon and the court assessed the agreed punishment of ten years' incarceration, to run consecutively to the punishment for aggravated robbery for which he is currently imprisoned. Tex. Penal Code Ann. 22.02 (Vernon 1994). He appealed to this court. Because we did not receive a statement of facts or a response to our request for a brief, we abated this cause to the trial court on October 16, 1996 for a hearing to determine Stringfellow intentions. Tex. R. App. P. 53(m); 74(l)(2). On October 28, we received a letter from Stringfellow, requesting that we "recognize [his letter] as [his] written request to have [his] appeal in the above named cause terminated.'" In the relevant part, Rule 59 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure states:

(b) Criminal Cases. The appeal may be dismissed if the appellant withdraws his notice of appeal at any time prior to the decision of the appellate court. The withdrawal shall be in writing signed by the appellant and his counsel and filed in duplicate with the clerk of the court of appeals in which the appeal is pending . . . . Notice of the dismissal shall be sent to the clerk of the trial court in which notice of appeal was filed.

Id. 59(b).

Consistent with his request, we will consider the letter as a motion to withdraw his notice of appeal. We have not issued a decision in this appeal. Stringfellow has signed the letter. Although he was represented by an appointed attorney at trial, he indicated that the lawyer would not represent him on appeal. However, he has not retained an attorney, filed an affidavit of indigency or requested an appointed attorney on the record before us; thus, he is proceeding pro-se at this time and no signature from a lawyer is necessary. Because the letter includes the necessary items required by Rule 59(b), we grant his request and dismiss this appeal.




Before Chief Justice Davis,

Justice Cummings, and

Justice Vance

Appeal dismissed on appellant's motion

Opinion delivered and filed November 20, 1996

Do not publish