Dederick Stewart v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 82nd District Court of Robertson County

Annotate this Case

IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

 

No. 10-96-104-CR

No. 10-96-105-CR

 

DEDERICK STEWART,

Appellant

v.

 

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee

 

From the 82nd District Court

Robertson County, Texas

Trial Court Nos. 96-02-15,933-CR

& 96-02-15,934-CR

 

MEMORANDUM OPINION

 

On May 28, 1996, we received copies of Dederick Stewart's notices of appeal and the trial court clerk's information forms regarding each appeal. // Tex. R. App. P. 40(b)(1). According to these sources and motions to dismiss he filed, Stewart was convicted of delivery of a controlled substance, cocaine, and placed on four years probation on April 8, 1996, for each conviction. On May 23, his probation was revoked and he was sentenced to two years' confinement in a state jail on each conviction, to be served consecutively. On June 17, 1996, he filed motions to withdraw his notices of appeal and asks that we dismiss his appeals.

In the relevant portion, 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).

Stewart and his attorney have both signed the motions, as required by the rule. Id. We have not issued a decision. Thus, the motions are granted and his notices of appeal are withdrawn.

Stewart's appeals are dismissed. Id.

PER CURIAM

 

Before Chief Justice Davis,

Justice Cummings, and

Justice Vance

Dismissed on appellant's motion

Opinion delivered and filed June 26, 1996

Do not publish

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.