Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

647 S.W.2d 294

Hypolite v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Decided March 23, 1983

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · decided 1983-03-23

Cited by 3 later decisions — most recently March 1998

3 state decisions

Relies on Ex Parte Trisler

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1983-03-23

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1OPINION

ODOM, Judge.

¶2This is an appeal from a conviction for forgery. Punishment was assessed at eight years.

¶3Appellant has filed a motion to dismiss the appeal. The motion was signed and presented by counsel and personally approved by appellant. The motion, however, was not notarized, as previously required by decisions of this Court. Ex parte Trisler, 605 S.W.2d 619 (Tex.Cr.App.1980). Today we overrule that line of cases and hold that a motion to dismiss an appeal signed by defendant and his attorney is sufficient. The old rule is without legal or rational foundation for the reasons stated in the dissent in Ex parte Trisler, supra. Counsel’s approval of the motion to dismiss is at least as strongly indicative of a thoughtfully considered decision to abandon an appeal as is presentation before a notary public.

¶4The appeal is dismissed.

/647/sw2d/294 · .json · Public domain