Leo Bray Hudlin, Jr. v. State

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedMarch 24, 2011
Docket13-10-00082-CR
StatusPublished

This text of Leo Bray Hudlin, Jr. v. State (Leo Bray Hudlin, Jr. 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.

Bluebook
Leo Bray Hudlin, Jr. v. State, (Tex. Ct. App. 2011).

Opinion

                                                     NUMBERS

                                                13-10-00081-CR

                                                13-10-00082-CR

                                 COURT OF APPEALS

                     THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

                         CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

____________________________________________________________

LEO BRAY HUDLIN, JR.,                                                              Appellant,

                                                             v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,                                                                 Appellee.

                           On appeal from the 329th District Court

of Wharton County, Texas.

                                      MEMORANDUM OPINION

                          Before Justices Garza, Vela, and Perkes

                               Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam


Appellant, Leo Bray Hudlin, Jr., received two convictions for tampering with or fabricating physical evidence.  On February 22, 2010, appellant filed notices of appeal.  On December 30, 2010, this Court abated the appeals because of counsel=s failure to file a brief and ordered the trial court to determine whether appellant desired to prosecute the appeals. 

At the trial court hearing, appellant signed a document stating that he waives his right of appeal and abandons his appeal in both cause numbers.  The document is signed by appellant’s counsel and approved by the trial court judge.

Based upon the evidence at the hearing that appellant does not want to continue 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 dismiss the appeals.

PER CURIAM

Do not publish. 

Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b). 

Delivered and filed the

24th day of March, 2011.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Leo Bray Hudlin, Jr. v. State, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/leo-bray-hudlin-jr-v-state-texapp-2011.