Background
Casey Farell Marshall’s appellate brief was due October 17, 2025, but neither a brief nor a motion for an extension was filed. After Marshall failed to respond to the Fourth Court of Appeals’ order directing him to file the brief and explain the delay, the court abated the appeal for an abandonment hearing in the trial court.
At that hearing, Marshall orally told the trial court that he no longer wished to pursue the appeal. After reinstating the case, the appellate court directed him to submit a motion complying with the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. Marshall’s counsel then filed a letter motion explaining that Marshall wanted the appeal dismissed, but Marshall did not sign it as Rule 42.2(a) ordinarily requires.
The Court’s Holding
The court granted counsel’s motion and dismissed the appeal. Although Rule 42.2(a) requires both a criminal appellant and the appellant’s attorney to sign a written dismissal motion, the court explained that strict compliance is not always required because Rule 2 permits an appellate court to suspend a procedural rule in appropriate circumstances.
The court suspended the appellant-signature requirement because Marshall had personally represented during the abandonment hearing that he no longer wished to pursue the appeal. His on-the-record statement, together with counsel’s signed letter motion, was sufficient under the circumstances to support dismissal.
Key Takeaways
- A criminal appeal ordinarily may be voluntarily dismissed only upon a written motion signed by both the appellant and counsel.
- An appellate court may suspend the appellant-signature requirement in appropriate circumstances under Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 2.
- An appellant’s personal statement at an abandonment hearing that he no longer wishes to appeal can support dismissal despite a technically deficient written motion.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates that Texas appellate courts may prioritize a clearly established intent to abandon an appeal over strict compliance with the dismissal motion’s signature requirements. It also shows how an abandonment hearing can create a record confirming that dismissal reflects the criminal appellant’s own informed choice.