Rebecca Marion Ives v. the State of Texas
This text of Rebecca Marion Ives v. the State of Texas (Rebecca Marion Ives 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
IN THE TENTH COURT OF APPEALS
No. 10-23-00036-CR No. 10-23-00037-CR
REBECCA MARION IVES, Appellant v.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
From the 369th District Court Leon County, Texas Trial Court Nos. 20-0032CR and 20-0093CR
MEMORANDUM OPINION
In two trial court case numbers, Rebecca Marion Ives was convicted of possession
of a controlled substance and bail jumping/failure to appear. Ives was sentenced to 24
months in a state jail facility and four years in prison, respectively. Separate judgments
were rendered for each offense. Ives’s counsel filed an Anders brief in each appeal. See
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 493 (1967).
In apparent response to the notice from counsel and this Court regarding the right
to file a response to counsel's motion to withdraw and brief in support, Ives sent a hand- written letter stating the following: "I would like to withdraw from the Appeal please."
Because of the uncertainty of whether Ives wanted to dismiss one or both of her appeals,
and given the procedural posture of the appeals, we stayed the appeals and ordered
appellate counsel to confer with Ives to determine her desires regarding both appeals and
a planned course of action. Counsel was further ordered to provide a status report of
Ives’s intentions and desires regarding the appeal within 21 days from the date of the
order, and to submit motions, if any, which would be necessary to effectuate Ives’s
desires.
Counsel has now filed a motion to dismiss each appeal. In each motion, counsel
asserted that he met with Ives by telephone and states that Ives wishes to abandon her
appeals. Counsel states that Ives expressed an understanding of counsel’s evaluation of
the case and does not wish to burden the Court with a frivolous appeal. Accordingly,
Ives moves to dismiss both of her appeals.
Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 42.2 provides that “the appellant and his or her
attorney must sign the written motion to dismiss….” TEX. R. APP. P. 42.2(a). Ives did not
sign either motion. We have previously permitted dismissal even if the appellant has not
personally signed the motion to dismiss when it is clear that the appellant wants to
dismiss the appeal. See Hendrix v. State, 86 S.W.3d 762 (Tex. App.—Waco 2002, no pet.)
(statement by appellant on the record). See also e.g. McGee v. State, No. 10-16-00136-CR,
2016 Tex. App. LEXIS 6325 (Tex. App.—Waco June 15, 2016, no pet.) (not designated for
publication) (letter from appellant attached to motion); Arnold v. State, No. 10-12-00098-
CR, 2013 Tex. App. LEXIS 1227 (Tex. App.—Waco Feb. 7, 2013, no pet.) (not designated
Ives v. State Page 2 for publication) (affidavit of appellant attached to motion); Hartsell v. State, 143 S.W.3d
233 (Tex. App.—Waco 2004, no pet.) (counsel’s statements in motion regarding
appellant’s refusal to sign motion); Smith v. State, No. 10-03-00194-CR, 2004 Tex. App.
LEXIS 1918 (Tex. App.—Waco Feb. 25, 2004, no pet.) (not designated for publication)
(counsel’s statements regarding discussion and approval of dismissal by appellant).
Here, Ives sent to this Court a letter expressing a desire to dismiss at least one of
her appeals. Counsel also spoke to Ives on the telephone where Ives stated her desire to
counsel to dismiss her appeals who informed this Court of Ives’s desires in the motion to
dismiss.
Accordingly, we invoke Rule 2 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure to
suspend the requirement in Rule 42.2(a) that the defendant sign the motion. See TEX. R.
APP. P. 2, 42.2(a); Hendrix v. State, 86 S.W.3d 762, 762 & n.1 (Tex. App.—Waco 2002, no
pet.); Hartsell v. State, 143 S.W.3d 233 (Tex. App.—Waco 2004, no pet.). See also TEX. R.
APP. P. 10.2(c) (items in a motion within the personal knowledge of the attorney signing
the motion need not be verified).
Ives’s motions are granted, and these appeals are dismissed.
TOM GRAY Chief Justice
Before Chief Justice Gray, Justice Johnson, and Justice Smith Motions granted; appeals dismissed Opinion delivered and filed January 11, 2024 Do not publish [CR25] Ives v. State Page 3
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Rebecca Marion Ives v. the State of Texas, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rebecca-marion-ives-v-the-state-of-texas-texapp-2024.