Martin Alcozer v. State

Court of Appeals of Texas·Decided December 3, 2003·No. 07-03-00427-CR·Published

Opinion

NO. 07-03-0427-CR


IN THE COURT OF APPEALS


FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS


AT AMARILLO


PANEL A


DECEMBER 3, 2003



______________________________


MARTIN ALCOZER, APPELLANT


V.


THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE


_________________________________


FROM THE 64TH DISTRICT COURT OF HALE COUNTY;


NO. A15084-0308; HONORABLE ROBERT W. KINKAID, JR., JUDGE


_______________________________


Before JOHNSON, C.J., and REAVIS and CAMPBELL, JJ.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant, Martin Alcozer, was convicted of the offense of Escape in the 64th District Court of Hale County, and thereafter gave notice of appeal.

The clerk of this court received, and on November 26, 2003, filed a motion to dismiss which represents that appellant desires to withdraw the notice of appeal. The motion to dismiss is signed by appellant and counsel of record for appellant. No decision of this Court having been rendered prior to the receipt of appellant's motion, the motion to dismiss is hereby granted. Tex. R. App. P. 42.2(a).

Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. Having dismissed the appeal at the personal request of appellant and his attorney, no motion for rehearing will be entertained and our mandate will issue forthwith.

Phil Johnson

Chief Justice



Do not publish.

courts have no authority to issue writs of prohibition to protect unappealed judgments. See Holloway v. Fifth Court of Appeals, 767 S.W.2d 680, 683 (Tex. 1989). Accordingly, the petitions for writ of mandamus and writ of prohibition are denied.

Per Curiam

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

Martin Alcozer v. State, (Tex. Ct. App. 2003).

Martin Alcozer v. State (Martin Alcozer v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Holloway v. Fifth Court of Appeals
767 S.W.2d 680 (Texas Supreme Court, 1989)