Brenda Lee Leatherwood v. State ( 2011 )

NO. 07-11-00086-CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT AMARILLO

PANEL E

JUNE 29, 2011

BRENDA LEE LEATHERWOOD, APPELLANT

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE

 FROM THE 194TH DISTRICT COURT OF DALLAS COUNTY;

NO. F-0634407-M; HONORABLE ERNEST B. WHITE, JUDGE

Before CAMPBELL  and HANCOCK, JJ. and BOYD, S.J.[1]

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Counsel for appellant Brenda Lee Leatherman filed a motion to withdraw appeal. In a signed attachment, appellant states that she wishes to withdraw the appeal.  We find the motion and attachment collectively meet the requirement of Rule of Appellate Procedure 42.2(a) that appellant and her attorney must sign a motion to dismiss the appeal.  Tex. R. App. P. 42.2(a).

No decision of this court having been delivered to date, we grant the motion. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. No motion for rehearing will be entertained and our mandate will issue forthwith.

                                                                                                James T. Campbell

                                                                                                            Justice

Do not publish.

---

[1] John T. Boyd, Chief Justice (Ret.), Seventh Court of Appeals, sitting by assignment.

As for appellant’s insinuation that the State failed to prove that he knew the “rocks” were cocaine, we do recall a time when it was rather fashionable to buy and possess items of geologic creation.  But, owning or possessing igneous, sedimentary, or like creations was not unlawful, as far as we know.  So, one can only wonder why appellant would buy “rocks” in an alley and abandon them when confronted by the police if he did not know them to be contraband.  Indeed, the act of abandonment itself could be characterized as an instance of consciousness of guilt.  See Davis v. State, 862 S.W.2d 817, 819 (Tex. App.–Beaumont 1993, no pet.) (describing the concept).  And, we find nothing wrong with a jury so interpreting the circumstances.

            Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.

                                                                                    Brian Quinn

                                                                                    Chief Justice

Do not publish.