Monty Shoopman v. The State Of Texas Appeal from 94th District Court of Nueces County (memorandum opinion per curiam)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NUMBERS 13-15-00566-CR AND 13-15-00567-CR COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG ____________________________________________________________ MONTY SHOOPMAN, Appellant, v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee. ____________________________________________________________ On appeal from the 94th District Court of Nueces County, Texas. ____________________________________________________________ MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Garza, Perkes, and Longoria Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam Appellant, Monty Shoopman, was convicted of possession of cocaine. On October 21, 2015, appellant filed notices of appeal by and through his attorney. Counsel for appellant subsequently filed Anders 1 briefs in these causes. The briefs and documents addressed to appellant were returned to counsel as undeliverable and counsel notified this Court that appellant had been released from incarceration and could 1 Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967). not be located. On September 27, 2016, this Court abated the appeals and ordered the trial court to determine whether appellant can be located and whether he desires to prosecute the appeals. Based on the trial court hearing, the trial court judge found credible the representations of counsel that he has been unable to locate appellant and that appellant has abandoned his appeals. Although no written motion has been filed in compliance with Rule 42.2(a) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, based upon the findings of the trial court that appellant abandoned his appeals, we conclude that good cause exists to suspend the operation of Rule 42.2(a) in these cases. See TEX. R. APP. P. 2. Accordingly, we reinstate these cases and we dismiss the appeals. Any pending motions are dismissed as moot. PER CURIAM Do not publish. See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b). Delivered and filed the 3rd day of November, 2016. 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.
