Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Stephen Wayne Norwood filed pro se notices of appeal on January 14, 2026, challenging County Court judgments convicting him of the misdemeanor offenses of resisting arrest and driving while intoxicated. The appeals came from Palo Pinto County, Texas, in trial court cause numbers 60512 and 60513. The appellate proceedings were docketed as numbers 11-26-00027-CR and 11-26-00028-CR.
According to the memorandum opinion, the clerk of the Eleventh Court of Appeals made every effort to contact Norwood about his appeals but received no response. The court then abated the appeals so the trial court could hold a hearing on whether Norwood wanted to proceed.
At that hearing, Norwood unequivocally stated that he did not want to continue the appeals. He explained that he had mailed a letter to the county clerk asking her to contact the prosecutor, court reporter, and trial court and tell them that he wanted to withdraw the appeals. After the hearing, the trial court filed written findings that Norwood did not desire to prosecute the appeals and did not desire for them to proceed.
The Court’s Holding
The Eleventh Court of Appeals dismissed both appeals. Justice W. Stacy Trotter authored the memorandum opinion for a panel consisting of Chief Justice Bailey, Justice Trotter, and Justice Williams. The opinion was filed November 5, 2026, and was marked “Do not publish” under Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 47.2(b).
Norwood had not filed a motion to dismiss under Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 42.2(a). The court nevertheless found good cause to suspend the operation of Rule 42 based on two case-specific circumstances: Norwood’s unopposed and unequivocal statements on the record that he did not wish to pursue the appeals and had attempted to withdraw them, and the trial court’s written findings confirming that position.
The court cited 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), and 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), as decisions dismissing appeals on similar statements at abatement hearings. Wagner in turn cited Conners v. State, 966 S.W.2d 108, 110–11 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1998, pet. ref’d). The opinion did not review the convictions, the evidence, or any substantive issue in the underlying misdemeanor cases.
Key Takeaways
- Both of Norwood’s appeals were dismissed after he stated on the record that he did not want to continue them.
- The absence of a Rule 42.2(a) motion did not prevent dismissal; the court found good cause to suspend Rule 42 on these facts.
- The ruling rested on Norwood’s unequivocal statements and the trial court’s findings, not on a merits determination concerning either conviction.
- The decision is an unpublished memorandum opinion and does not announce a universal rule for every case involving an unfiled dismissal motion.
Why It Matters
The disposition illustrates how a Texas appellate court may address a pro se appellant’s clear abandonment of an appeal after an abatement hearing, even without a formal Rule 42.2(a) motion. The documented hearing statements and written trial court findings supplied the basis for the court’s procedural ruling.
Because the court dismissed the appeals without addressing the underlying convictions, the opinion provides no substantive analysis of resisting arrest, driving while intoxicated, evidentiary sufficiency, or any other merits issue.