Daniel Quilimaco v. State
This text of Daniel Quilimaco v. State (Daniel Quilimaco v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
Before QUINN and REAVIS and CAMPBELL, JJ.
Pending before this Court is appellant's Withdrawal of Notice of Appeal as Premature requesting dismissal of his appeal. Appellant and his attorney both have signed the document stating that appellant withdraws his appeal. Tex. R. App. P. 42.2(a). No decision of this Court having been delivered to date, we grant the motion. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. No motion for rehearing will be entertained and our mandate will issue forthwith.
James T. Campbell
Justice
Do not publish.
ndent: 0in } body { font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 12pt; font-weight: normal; font-style: normal }
NO. 07-08-0051-CR
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
AT AMARILLO
PANEL B
MAY 28, 2008
______________________________
BENNY JOE PALOMO,
Appellant
v.
THE STATE OF TEXAS,
Appellee
_________________________________
FROM THE COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 1 OF RANDALL COUNTY;
NO. 2006-1390-L; HON. RONNIE WALKER, PRESIDING
_______________________________
Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and HANCOCK, JJ.
Pending before the court is the appeal of Benny Joe Palomo. The clerk’s record was filed on January 21, 2008, and a supplemental clerk’s record on March 19, 2008. Contained therein is the Trial Court’s Certification of Defendant’s Right of Appeal, which was executed on February 12, 2008, after amendments to Rule 25.2(d) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure became effective on September 1, 2007. The form on file does not comply with the amendments to the rule, which now require that a defendant sign the certification and receive a copy. Additionally, the new form provides certain admonishments to a defendant not previously required.
Procedural rules generally control litigation from their effective date. Wilson v. State, 473 S.W.2d 532, 535 (Tex.Crim.App. 1971). Consequently, we abate this appeal and remand this cause to the trial court for further proceedings. Upon remand, the trial court shall utilize whatever means necessary to determine if appellant desires to continue the appeal and, if so, secure a proper Certification of Defendant’s Right of Appeal in compliance with Rule 25.2(d). Once properly completed and executed, the certification shall be included in a supplemental clerk’s record. See Tex. R. App. P. 34.5(c)(2). The trial court shall cause this supplemental clerk's record to be filed with the Clerk of this Court by June 27, 2008. This order constitutes notice to all parties, pursuant to Rule 37.1 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, of the defective certification. If a supplemental clerk’s record containing a proper certification is not filed in accordance with this order, this matter will be referred to the Court for dismissal. See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(d).
It is so ordered.
Per Curiam
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Daniel Quilimaco v. State, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/daniel-quilimaco-v-state-texapp-2005.