Ex Parte Walter Eugene Naymola Jr. v. the State of Texas

• Court: Texas Court of Appeals, 9th District (Beaumont)
• Decided: February 25, 2026
• Docket: 09-25-00426-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

__________________

NO. 09-25-00426-CR NO. 09-25-00427-CR NO. 09-25-00428-CR __________________

EX PARTE WALTER EUGENE NAYMOLA JR.

__________________________________________________________________

On Appeal from the Criminal District Court Jefferson County, Texas Trial Cause Nos. F22-40469, F22-40470, and F22-40471 __________________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant Walter Eugene Naymola Jr. filed a motion to dismiss his

accelerated appeals from an Order Denying Applicant’s Writ of Habeas Corpus

Alleging Selective Prosecution in three cases. He contends his appeals are moot

because on February 16, 2026, Naymola entered a guilty plea in Trial Cause Number

F22-40470 and the trial court signed an order placing Naymola on deferred

adjudication community supervision for a term of ten years. An Agreed Punishment

Recommendation that is signed personally by the appellant and his trial attorney,

1 states that Cause Number F22-40470 will run concurrently with Trial Cause Number

F22-40469, the State will dismiss Trial Cause Number F22-40471, and the appellant

will dismiss his pending appeals.

At any time before an appellate court’s decision, the appellate court may

dismiss the appeal upon the appellant’s motion signed by both appellant and his

counsel. See Tex. R. App. P. 44.2(a). Naymola did not personally sign the motion to

dismiss, but appellate counsel attached to the motion an Agreed Punishment

Recommendation that is signed personally by the appellant and his attorney states

that the appellant will dismiss his pending appeals. We conclude that good cause

exists to suspend the operation of Rule 42.2(a) in accordance with Rule 2. See Tex.

R. App. P. 2 (“On a party’s motion or on its own initiative an appellate court may—

to expedite a decision or for other good cause—suspend a rule’s operation in a

particular case and order a different procedure[.]”).

We grant Appellant’s motion to dismiss his appeals.

APPEALS DISMISSED.

PER CURIAM

Submitted on February 24, 2026 Opinion Delivered February 25, 2026 Do Not Publish

Before Golemon, C.J., Johnson and Wright, JJ.