Full Opinion

Opinion filed November 5, 2026 In The Eleventh Court of Appeals __________ Nos. 11-26-00027-CR & 11-26-00028-CR __________ STEPHEN WAYNE NORWOOD, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the County Court Palo Pinto County, Texas Trial Court Cause Nos. 60512 & 60513 MEMORANDUM OPINION On January 14, 2026, Appellant, Stephen Wayne Norwood, filed pro se notices of appeal from the trial court’s judgments of conviction for the misdemeanor offenses of resisting arrest and driving while intoxicated. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 38.03 (West 2016), § 49.04 (West Supp. 2026). After the clerk of this court made every effort to contact Appellant regarding his appeals without a response, we abated the appeals for the trial court to conduct a hearing regarding Appellant’s desire to proceed on appeal. The trial court held a hearing on the matter. At the hearing, Appellant unequivocally stated that he did not desire to continue with his appeals in these cases. He further explained, “I mailed a letter to [the county clerk]. I got up the next morning and I mailed her a letter, and I asked her to contact the prosecutor and the Court Reporter and [the trial court] and let y’all know that I wanted to withdraw all them [sic] appeals.” Following the hearing, the trial court filed its written findings that Appellant “does not desire to prosecute [the] appeal[s]” and “does not desire for [the appeals] to proceed.” Appellant has not filed a motion to dismiss his appeals pursuant to Rule 42.2(a) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. TEX. R. APP. P. 42.2(a). However, given (1) Appellant’s “unopposed and unequivocable” statements on the record that he did not wish to pursue these appeals and had attempted to withdraw his appeals, and (2) the trial court’s findings on the matter, we conclude that good cause exists to suspend the operation of Rule 42 and dismiss the appeals. See Wagner v. State, No. 01-17-00752-CR, 2018 WL 1320837, at *1 (Tex. App.— Houston [1st Dist.] Mar. 15, 2018, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (dismissing appeal based on the appellant’s “unopposed and unequivocable” statement at the abatement hearing (citing Conners v. State, 966 S.W.2d 108, 110–11 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1998, pet. ref’d))); Walton v. State, No. 11-07-00339-CR, 2008 WL 4292682, at *1 (Tex. App.—Eastland Sep. 11, 2008, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (same). Accordingly, we dismiss these appeals. Wagner, 2018 WL 1320837, at *1; Walton, 2008 WL 4292682, at *1. W. STACY TROTTER November 5, 2026 JUSTICE Do not publish. See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b). Panel consists of: Bailey, C.J., Trotter, J., and Williams, J. 2