You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.

Maximino Carrillo Castro v. State of Texas

Citation: Not availableDocket: 10-00-00363-CR

Court: Court of Appeals of Texas; March 26, 2002; Texas; State Appellate Court

Original Court Document: View Document

Narrative Opinion Summary

In this judicial opinion, the court addresses multiple appeals, primarily focusing on procedural dismissals and standards of review. The case involves Maximino Carrillo Castro, who, after pleading guilty to possession of cocaine with intent to deliver, sought to dismiss his appeal. His motion was granted under Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 42.2(a), adhering to procedural protocol by confirming his personal withdrawal and notifying the trial court clerk. In a separate development, appellants Deborah M. Lewis, G. S. Parker, and Richard Mowrer also motioned for dismissal of their appeals, which were similarly granted. The court further reviewed attorney's fees in class-action suits, applying the abuse-of-discretion standard, which underscores the trial court's latitude in determining fee awards unless an evident error is shown. The appellants' motion for rehearing was denied, reinforcing the court's established procedural and review standards. Ultimately, the court's decisions underscore the importance of procedural compliance and the discretionary boundaries afforded to trial courts in financial adjudications within class-action contexts.

Legal Issues Addressed

Standard of Review for Attorney's Fees in Class-Action Suits

Application: The court adhered to the abuse-of-discretion standard for reviewing attorney's fees in class-action suits, indicating that the trial court's decision on the amount is generally upheld unless a clear abuse is demonstrated.

Reasoning: The court reaffirmed that the standard of review for attorney's fees awarded in class-action suits is an abuse-of-discretion standard, emphasizing that the amount awarded is generally within the trial court's discretion unless proven otherwise.

Withdrawal of Appeal under Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 42.2(a)

Application: The court granted the dismissal of Castro's appeal following his personal request, complying with procedural requirements by ensuring a duplicate was sent to the trial court clerk.

Reasoning: The dismissal was made in accordance with Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 42.2(a), as Castro personally signed the withdrawal and a duplicate was sent to the trial court clerk, confirming procedural compliance.