

 











 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                              
                                       NUMBER
13-09-00663-CR
 
                                  COURT
OF APPEALS
 
                      THIRTEENTH
DISTRICT OF TEXAS
 
                         CORPUS
CHRISTI - EDINBURG
____________________________________________________________
 
JUAN
MANUEL LEDESMA,                                                            Appellant,
 
                                                             v.
 
THE
STATE OF TEXAS,                                                                  Appellee.
____________________________________________________________
 
                             On
Appeal from the 139th District Court
                                        of
Hidalgo County, Texas.
____________________________________________________________
 
                                       MEMORANDUM
OPINION
 
         Before
Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Benavides and Vela
                                 Memorandum
Opinion Per Curiam
 




Appellant,
Juan Manuel Ledesma, was convicted of aggravated sexual assault and has filed
an appeal of the trial court’s denial of his request for exemption from the
requirement to register as a sex offender.  On March 24, 2010, appellant’s
appointed counsel filed an Anders brief in which he asserts there are no
meritorious issues to raise on appeal.  See Anders v. California, 386
U.S. 738 (1967).  Counsel also filed a motion to withdraw as counsel and has
provided appellant with the brief and has informed him of his right to file his
own brief and his right to obtain and review the record.  On April 7, 2010,
appellant filed a pro se motion to withdraw his notice of appeal.  
Texas
Rule of Appellate Procedure 42.2(a) requires that both the appellant and his
attorney sign a motion seeking voluntary dismissal of a criminal appeal.  See
Tex. R. App. P. 42.2(a).  Although
appellant’s counsel has not signed the motion, he has fulfilled his duties as
court-appointed counsel on appeal.  Based
upon all of the documents filed in this case, 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.
Appellant
counsel’s motion to withdraw as counsel is GRANTED.  Other pending motions are
dismissed as moot. 
 
PER
CURIAM
 
Do not
publish.  See Tex. R. App. P.
47.2(b).  
Delivered and filed the
6th day of May, 2010.

