Court of Civil Appeals of Texas, 2003

Gladys Hodgson Kohr v. State

Gladys Hodgson Kohr v. State
Court of Civil Appeals of Texas · Decided June 18, 2003

Gladys Hodgson Kohr v. State

Opinion

Gladys Hodgson Kohr v. State






IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS


No. 10-02-355-CR

No. 10-02-356-CR

No. 10-02-357-CR


     GLADYS HODGSON KOHR,

                                                                              Appellant

     v.


     THE STATE OF TEXAS,

                                                                              Appellee


From the 278th District Court

Leon County, Texas

Trial Court Nos. CM-01-359A, CM-01-360A and CM-01-361A

                                                                                                                

MEMORANDUM OPINION

                                                                                                                

      Gladys Hodgson Kohr has filed motions to dismiss these appeals. Rule of Appellate Procedure 42.2(a) provides:

At any time before the appellate court's decision, the appellate court may dismiss the appeal if the party that appealed withdraws its notice of appeal—by filing a written withdrawal in duplicate with the appellate clerk, who must immediately send the duplicate copy to the trial court clerk. An appellant must personally sign the written withdrawal.


Tex. R. App. P. 42.2(a).

      We have not issued decisions in these appeals. Kohr personally signed the motions. The Clerk of this Court has sent duplicate copies to the trial court clerk. See id.; McClain v. State, 17 S.W.3d 310, 311 (Tex. App.—Waco 2000, no pet.) (per curiam). Accordingly, Kohr’s appeals are dismissed.


                                                                   PER CURIAM


Before Chief Justice Davis,

      Justice Vance, and

      Justice Gray

Appeals dismissed

Opinion delivered and filed June 18, 2003

Do not publish

[CR25]

>

Appellant has offered no reasoning indicating that the best strategy at the punishment phase was to present defensive testimony.

Considered under the two-pronged test of Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 80 L.Ed.2d 674, 104 S.Ct. 2052 (1984), or under the "totality of the representation" test set forth in Ex parte Duffy, 607 S.W.2d 507 (Tex.Cr.App. 1980), the representation afforded appellant by trial counsel in our case was effective representation. Appellant's point of error and the contentions raised under it are overruled. The judgment is affirmed.

 

                          VIC HALL

DO NOT PUBLISHJustice

 

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.