Federico Rubio Paredes v. the State of Texas
This text of Federico Rubio Paredes v. the State of Texas (Federico Rubio Paredes v. the State of Texas) 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
Opinion issued June 8, 2023
In The
Court of Appeals For The
First District of Texas ———————————— NO. 01-23-00284-CR ——————————— FEDERICO RUBIO PAREDES, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 351st District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Case No. 1729334
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant, Federico Rubio Paredes, appealed from the trial court’s April 6,
2023 judgment of conviction. On May 23, 2023, appellant filed an “Emergency
Motion to Dismiss Appeal,” stating that he had “filed a timely motion for new trial
that was granted by the trial court on May 19, 2023.” Despite the trial court’s order granting new trial, appellant’s motion states that he “remains in custody because his
notice of appeal . . . remains in effect and he is unable to make an appeal bond.”
However, because his conviction “has already been overturned by the trial court,”
appellant “no longer wishes to pursue” his appeal, and requests that the Court
dismiss his appeal.
Appellant’s motion is signed by appellant’s counsel, but not by appellant.
Accordingly, appellant’s motion to dismiss fails to comply with the requirements of
Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 42.2, governing voluntary dismissal in criminal
cases. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.2(a) (“At any time before the appellate court’s
decision, the appellate court may dismiss the appeal upon the appellant’s motion.
The appellant and his or her attorney must sign the written motion to dismiss . . . .”
(emphasis added)).
We note however that the granting of a motion for new trial restores the case
to its position before the former trial. See TEX. R. APP. P. 21.9(b). Accordingly, the
trial court’s order granting a new trial has rendered the appeal moot. See TEX. R.
APP. P. 21.9(b); see also Villegas v. State, No. 01-12-00605-CR, 2012 WL 6208301,
at *1 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Dec. 13, 2012, no pet.) (mem. op., not
designated for publication) (dismissing appeal as moot where trial court granted new
trial although “appellant did not sign the motion to dismiss”).
2 Appellant’s motion also requests that the Court immediately issue its mandate.
An appellate clerk may issue a mandate early either on agreement of the parties, “or
for good cause on the motion of a party.” See TEX. R. APP. P. 18.1(c). We construe
this request, included in appellant’s motion to dismiss, as a motion for immediate
issuance of the mandate.
Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal as moot. See TEX. R. APP. P. 43.2(f). We
further grant appellant’s motion for immediate issuance of the mandate and direct
the Clerk of this Court to immediately issue the mandate. See TEX. R. APP. P.
18.1(c). We dismiss any other pending motions, including appellant’s Emergency
Motion to Dismiss Appeal, as moot.
PER CURIAM
Panel consists of Chief Justice Adams and Justices Guerra and Farris. 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
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Federico Rubio Paredes v. the State of Texas, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/federico-rubio-paredes-v-the-state-of-texas-texapp-2023.