Alfredo Regalado, Individually, and D/B/A 4 Aces Bail Bonds v. State

Court of Appeals of Texas

Alfredo Regalado, Individually, and D/B/A 4 Aces Bail Bonds v. State

DecidedFebruary 9, 2006

Docket13-05-00752-CV

StatusPublished

This text of Alfredo Regalado, Individually, and D/B/A 4 Aces Bail Bonds v. State (Alfredo Regalado, Individually, and D/B/A 4 Aces Bail Bonds v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Alfredo Regalado, Individually, and D/B/A 4 Aces Bail Bonds v. State, (Tex. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

NUMBER 13-05-752-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

___________________________________________________________________

ALFREDO REGALADO, INDIVIDUALLY,

D/B/A 4 ACES BAIL BONDS, Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.

___________________________________________________________________

On appeal from the 93rd District Court

of Hidalgo County, Texas

___________________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Yañez and Garza

Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam

Appellant, ALFREDO REGALADO, INDIVIDUALLY, D/B/A 4 ACES BAIL BONDS, attempted to perfect an appeal from a judgment entered by the 93rd District Court of Hidalgo County, Texas, in cause number 0222-02-B(N). Judgment in this cause was signed on February 2, 2005. No timely motion for new trial was filed. Pursuant to Tex. R. App. P. 26.1, appellant=s notice of appeal was due on March 4, 2005, but was not filed until December 6, 2005.

Notice of this defect was given so that steps could be taken to correct the defect, if it could be done. Appellant was advised that, if the defect was not corrected within ten days from the date of receipt of this Court=s letter, the appeal would be dismissed. To date, no response has been received from appellant.

The Court, having examined and fully considered the documents on file, appellant=s failure to timely perfect his appeal, and appellant=s failure to respond to this Court=s notice, is of the opinion that the appeal should be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. The appeal is hereby DISMISSED FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION.

PER CURIAM

Memorandum Opinion delivered and filed

this the 9th day of February, 2006.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

NUMBER 13-05-752-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

___________________________________________________________________

ALFREDO REGALADO, INDIVIDUALLY,

D/B/A 4 ACES BAIL BONDS, Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.

___________________________________________________________________

On appeal from the 93rd District Court

of Hidalgo County, Texas

___________________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Yañez and Garza

Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam

Appellant, ALFREDO REGALADO, INDIVIDUALLY, D/B/A 4 ACES BAIL BONDS, attempted to perfect an appeal from a judgment entered by the 93rd District Court of Hidalgo County, Texas, in cause number 0222-02-B(N). Judgment in this cause was signed on February 2, 2005. No timely motion for new trial was filed. Pursuant to Tex. R. App. P. 26.1, appellant=s notice of appeal was due on March 4, 2005, but was not filed until December 6, 2005.

Notice of this defect was given so that steps could be taken to correct the defect, if it could be done. Appellant was advised that, if the defect was not corrected within ten days from the date of receipt of this Court=s letter, the appeal would be dismissed. To date, no response has been received from appellant.

The Court, having examined and fully considered the documents on file, appellant=s failure to timely perfect his appeal, and appellant=s failure to respond to this Court=s notice, is of the opinion that the appeal should be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. The appeal is hereby DISMISSED FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION.

PER CURIAM

Memorandum Opinion delivered and filed

this the 9th day of February, 2006.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Alfredo Regalado, Individually, and D/B/A 4 Aces Bail Bonds v. State, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/alfredo-regalado-individually-and-dba-4-aces-bail--texapp-2006.