Court of Civil Appeals of Texas, 2018

Sergio v. Edison v. State

Sergio v. Edison v. State
Court of Civil Appeals of Texas · Decided August 30, 2018

Sergio v. Edison v. State

Opinion

NUMBER 13-18-00032-CR COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG ____________________________________________________________ SERGIO V. EDISON, Appellant, v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee. ____________________________________________________________ On appeal from the County Court of Goliad County, Texas. ____________________________________________________________ MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Rodriguez and Benavides Memorandum Opinion by Justice Rodriguez Appellant, Sergio V. Edison, was convicted of possession of marihuana. On January 12, 2018, appellant filed a notice of appeal by and through his attorney. The appellant failed to file a designation and make arrangement for preparation of the clerk’s record. On March 5, 2018, this Court abated the appeal and ordered the trial court to determine whether appellant was indigent and desired to prosecute this appeal.

The trial court held a hearing on March 28, 2018 and made findings that the defendant failed to appear at the hearing, correspondence send to defendant’s last known mailing address had not been returned, and defendant had not returned a signed copy of the certification of defendant’s right to appeal.

On April 10, 2018, this Court issued a supplemental order of abatement, directing the trial court to determine whether appellant can be located and whether appellant has abandoned his appeal. The trial court held a hearing on June 20, 2018. Three attempts were made to subpoena appellant and the sheriff’s deputy serving the subpoena contacted the defendant’s mother who does not know how to get in contact with appellant.

The trial court found that appellant cannot be located, every reasonable avenue to locate him has been exhausted, and appellant has abandoned his appeal. Accordingly, this appeal is hereby reinstated.

Based upon the recommendations of the trial court that appellant has abandoned his appeal, we conclude that good cause exists to suspend the operation of Rule 42.2(a) in this case. See TEX. R. APP. P. 2. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal.

NELDA V. RODRIGUEZ Justice

Do not publish.

See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).

Delivered and filed the 30th day of August, 2018.

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