Brenda Lee Leatherwood v. State
Brenda Lee Leatherwood v. State
Opinion
NO. 07-11-00086-CR
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
AT AMARILLO
PANEL E
JUNE 29, 2011
BRENDA LEE LEATHERWOOD, APPELLANT
v.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE
FROM THE 194TH DISTRICT COURT OF DALLAS COUNTY;
NO. F-0634407-M; HONORABLE ERNEST B. WHITE, JUDGE
Before CAMPBELL and HANCOCK, JJ. and BOYD, S.J.[1]
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Counsel for appellant Brenda Lee Leatherman filed a motion to withdraw appeal. In a signed attachment, appellant states that she wishes to withdraw the appeal. We find the motion and attachment collectively meet the requirement of Rule of Appellate Procedure 42.2(a) that appellant and her attorney must sign a motion to dismiss the appeal. Tex. R. App. P. 42.2(a).
No decision of this court having been delivered to date, we grant the motion. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. No motion for rehearing will be entertained and our mandate will issue forthwith.
James T. Campbell
Justice
Do not publish.
[1] John T. Boyd, Chief Justice (Ret.), Seventh Court of Appeals, sitting by assignment.
As for appellant’s insinuation that the State failed to prove that he knew the “rocks” were cocaine, we do recall a time when it was rather fashionable to buy and possess items of geologic creation. But, owning or possessing igneous, sedimentary, or like creations was not unlawful, as far as we know. So, one can only wonder why appellant would buy “rocks” in an alley and abandon them when confronted by the police if he did not know them to be contraband. Indeed, the act of abandonment itself could be characterized as an instance of consciousness of guilt. See Davis v. State, 862 S.W.2d 817, 819 (Tex. App.–Beaumont 1993, no pet.) (describing the concept). And, we find nothing wrong with a jury so interpreting the circumstances.
Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.
Brian Quinn
Chief Justice
Do not publish.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.