Aptpcy Ltd v. the City of Pasadena
This text of Aptpcy Ltd v. the City of Pasadena (Aptpcy Ltd v. the City of Pasadena) 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.
Opinion
Before QUINN and REAVIS and CAMPBELL, JJ.
On March 7, 2005, appellant APTPCY, Ltd., et al. filed a notice of appeal in the County Court at Law Number Three of Harris County complaining of an award from Special Commissioners regarding property value. According to the notice of appeal, APTPCY, Ltd. et al. requested a jury trial and enclosed payment of the jury fee. Following communications between the Clerk of this Court, the County Clerk, and counsel for APTPCY, Ltd., et al., it was determined that the notice of appeal, although correctly filed in the County Court at Law Number Three of Harris County, was also mistakenly filed in the Fourteenth Court of Appeals then transferred to this Court by order of the Texas Supreme Court. Counsel for APTPCY, Ltd., et al. informed the Clerk of this Court that the matter remains pending in the County Court at Law Number Three and no final judgment has been rendered.
Accordingly, we dismiss this purported appeal for want of jurisdiction. No motion for rehearing will be entertained and our mandate will issue forthwith.
Don H. Reavis
Justice
RT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
AT AMARILLO
PANEL C
JANUARY 3, 2008
______________________________
MICHELLE SMITH, APPELLANT
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE
_________________________________
FROM THE 100TH DISTRICT COURT OF CHILDRESS COUNTY;
NO. 4839; HONORABLE DAVID MCCOY, JUDGE
_______________________________
Before QUINN, C.J., and HANCOCK and PIRTLE, JJ.
ABATEMENT AND REMAND
Appellant, Michelle Smith, filed a notice of appeal from the trial court’s order deferring adjudication of guilt for tampering with a governmental record. The clerk’s record filed on December 12, 2007, contains the Trial Court’s Certification of Defendant’s Right of Appeal. However, the form does not comply with Rule 25.2(d) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure nor is it signed by Appellant as required by the Rule.
Consequently, we abate this appeal and remand the cause to the trial court for further proceedings. Upon remand, the trial court shall utilize whatever means necessary to secure a Certification of Defendant’s Right of Appeal in compliance with Rule 25.2(d). Once properly executed, the certification shall be included in a supplemental clerk’s record and filed with this Court on or before January 25, 2008.
It is so ordered.
Per Curiam
Do not publish.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Aptpcy Ltd v. the City of Pasadena, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/aptpcy-ltd-v-the-city-of-pasadena-texapp-2005.