
NO. 07-00-0311-CR



IN THE COURT OF APPEALS



FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS



AT AMARILLO



PANEL A



NOVEMBER 7, 2001



______________________________





JORGE ANTONIO GONZALEZ, APPELLANT



V.



THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE





_________________________________



FROM THE 262ND DISTRICT COURT OF HARRIS COUNTY;



NO. 829,236; HONORABLE WILLIAM M. HATTEN, JUDGE



_______________________________



Before BOYD, C.J., and REAVIS and JOHNSON, JJ.

DISMISSAL

Pending before this Court is appellant’s 
pro se
 request to dismiss his appeal.  Rule 42.2(a) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure provides that an appeal may be dismissed if appellant withdraws his notice of appeal by his signed motion accompanied by the signature of his attorney.  However, Rule 2 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure grants us the authority to suspend the operation of an existing rule and in its place order a different procedure which addresses unforeseen circumstances.  
See 
Rodriguez v. State, 970 S.W.2d 133, 135 (Tex.App.--Amarillo 1998, pet. ref’d).  An accused has the ultimate authority to make certain fundamental decisions regarding his case, including whether to prosecute an appeal.  
See
 Conners v. State, 966 S.W.2d 108 (Tex.App.--Houston [1
st
 Dist.] 1998, pet. ref’d), citing Jones v. Barnes, 463 U.S. 745, 103 S.Ct. 3308, 77 L.Ed.2d 987 (1983).  Thus, we suspend the operation of Rule 42.2(a) in this case and dismiss the appeal based upon appellant’s clear intent not to pursue his appeal.  No decision of this Court having been delivered, we dismiss the appeal and no motion for rehearing will be entertained and our mandate will issue forthwith.

Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.



Don H. Reavis

    Justice









Do not publish. 

