Rebecca Sheron Austin v. The State of TexasAppeal from 361st District Court of Brazos County (memorandum opinion )

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE TENTH COURT OF APPEALS No. 10-13-00287-CR No. 10-13-00288-CR No. 10-13-00289-CR REBECCA SHERON AUSTIN, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee From the 361st District Court Brazos County, Texas Trial Court Nos. 09-03111-CRF-361, 12-01840-CRM-361 and 13-00768-CRM-361 MEMORANDUM OPINION In three separate appellate cause numbers, appellant, Rebecca Sheron Austin a/k/a Rebecca Sherron Austin a/k/a Rebecca Pierce, appealed her convictions for: (1) theft of property valued at less than $1,500; (2) driving with an invalid license (subsequent); and (3) violating her occupational driver s license. On January 17, 2014, appellant s counsel filed motions to dismiss each of the three appeals. Though none of the motions are signed by appellant, in each motion, appellant s counsel referenced and attached letters written and signed by appellant, wherein appellant expressed that she no longer wants to continue her appeal in each of the appellate cause numbers. These letters are a clear indication that appellant desires to abandon her appeal in each appellate cause number and provides sufficient basis for this Court to dismiss the appeals. See Hendrix v. State, 86 S.W.3d 762, 763-64 (Tex. App. Waco 2002, no pet.) (per curiam) (applying Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 2 to suspend Rule 42.2(a) s requirement that appellant must personally sign the written withdrawal because the appellant plainly stated his desire to drop the appeal in open court). Accordingly, we grant appellant s motions to dismiss appellate cause numbers 10-13-00287-CR, 10-13-00288-CR, and 10-13-00289-CR; these appeals are hereby dismissed. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.2(a). AL SCOGGINS Justice Before Chief Justice Gray, Justice Davis, and Justice Scoggins Motions to dismiss granted; appeals dismissed Opinion delivered and filed January 30, 2014 Do not publish [CR25] Austin v. State Page 2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.