Christopher Holland v. the State of Texas
This text of Christopher Holland v. the State of Texas (Christopher Holland v. the State of Texas) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Texas Court of Appeals, 1st District (Houston) primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
Opinion issued January 6, 2026
In The
Court of Appeals For The
First District of Texas ———————————— NO. 01-24-00554-CR ——————————— CHRISTOPHER HOLLAND, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 412th Judicial District Court Brazoria County, Texas Trial Court Case No. 96101-CR
On May 8, 2024, appellant Christopher Holland was convicted by a jury of
Aggravated Assault Causing Serious Bodily Injury and sentenced to 50 years’
confinement in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice (TDCJ) – Institutional
Division. Appellant’s appointed trial counsel Kenneth Nash filed a notice of
appeal on July 22, 2024. Appellant’s retained attorney Chris Self filed appellant’s brief on February
11, 2025, and on February 26, 2025, the State filed appellee’s brief. On June 24,
2025, Chris Self filed a Motion to Substitute Counsel, requesting to withdraw and
stating that attorney Brad Haggard will represent appellant. We granted the motion
to substitute and abated for the trial court to determine whether appellant wants to
pursue his appeal and, if so, whether he retained Brad Haggard or is indigent and
wants appointed counsel. See TEX. R. APP. P. 6.5.
The trial court held the abatement hearing on August 8, 2025, which
appellant attended by video conference. On August 14, 2025, the trial court issued
findings of fact and conclusions of law. The trial court concluded, among other
things, that appellant “has not agreed to retain attorney Brad Haggard” and “does
not want to prosecute his appeal.”
The voluntary dismissal of a criminal appeal is governed by Texas Rule of
Appellate Procedure 42.2, which requires a motion to dismiss, signed by an
appellant and his attorney, to be filed with the appellate court. TEX. R. APP. P.
42.2(a). But on our own initiative, if we find good cause exists, we may suspend
the requirements of Rule 42.2 in a particular case to order a different procedure.
See TEX. R. APP. P. 2 (providing appellate courts may—to expedite a decision or
for other good cause—suspend a rule’s operation in a particular case and order a
different procedure).
2 Although no written motion has been filed in compliance with Rule 42.2(a),
based on the record presented to this Court, and the finding of the trial court from
the abatement hearing, we conclude that good cause exists to suspend the operation
of Rule 42.2 in this appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 2, 42; Conners v. State, 966
S.W.2d 108, 110–11 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1998, pet. ref’d) (using Rule
2 to suspend operation of Rule 42.2 to dismiss appeal); see also Hawthorne v.
State, No. 01-24-00887-CR, 2025 WL 1225115, at *1 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st
Dist.] Apr. 29, 2025, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication)
(suspending operation of Rule 42.2(a) and dismissing appeal based on appellant’s
statement at abatement hearing that he did not wish to pursue appeal and trial
court’s findings of fact that appellant expressed desire not to proceed with his
appeal); Boiser v. State, No. 01-19-00911-CR, 2021 WL 3669627, at *2 (Tex.
App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Aug. 19, 2021, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for
publication) (suspending operation of Rule 42.2(a) and dismissing appeal based on
record and trial court finding abandonment of appeal); Truong v. State, No. 01-17-
00343-CR, 2018 WL 1630177, at *1 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Apr. 5,
2018, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (suspending operation of
Rule 42.2 and construing abatement record as appellant’s motion to dismiss
appeal). We have not issued a decision in the appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.2(b).
3 Accordingly, based on the record before us, we reinstate and dismiss the
appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 43.2(b). We dismiss any pending motions as moot.
PER CURIAM
Panel consists of Chief Justice Adams and Justices Gunn and Johnson.
Do not publish. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Christopher Holland v. the State of Texas, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/christopher-holland-v-the-state-of-texas-txctapp1-2026.