Billy Ray Davis v. State

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedNovember 3, 2011
Docket02-11-00016-CV
StatusPublished

This text of Billy Ray Davis v. State (Billy Ray Davis 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
Billy Ray Davis v. State, (Tex. Ct. App. 2011).

Opinion

COURT OF APPEALS SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH

NO. 02-11-00016-CV

BILLY RAY DAVIS APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS APPELLEE

----------

FROM CRIMINAL DISTRICT COURT NO. 3 OF TARRANT COUNTY

MEMORANDUM OPINION1 ----------

On December 8, 2010, Appellant Billy Ray Davis filed a notice of appeal

challenging the trial court’s order to withdraw funds from his inmate trust account.

Because we were unable to determine whether Appellant’s rights to due process

had been satisfied based on the record before us, we abated the appeal on

March 3, 2011, for 180 days for Appellant to obtain an appealable order from the

trial court with regard to the withdrawal of funds from Appellant’s inmate trust

1 See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4. account. See Palomo v. State, 322 S.W.3d 304, 307–08 (Tex. App.—Amarillo

2010, order), disp. on merits, Nos. 07-10-00181-CV, 07-10-00182-CV, 07-10-

00183-CV, 2010 WL 5250874 (Tex. App.—Amarillo, no pet.) (abating appeal to

allow appellant time to file an appropriate motion to modify, correct, or rescind

the withdrawal notification and obtain from the trial court a final, appealable order

addressing that motion); see also Tex. R. App. P. 27.2.

On September 21, 2011, we sent a letter to Appellant and his attorney

informing them that the case had been reinstated, but no appealable order had

been entered by the trial court. We told Appellant and his counsel that if we did

not receive a written, appealable order or a response from Appellant’s counsel

indicating that he would obtain an appealable order on or before October 3,

2011, the appeal would be dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

We have received no response from Appellant’s counsel, and no

appealable order has been filed in the trial court. Because there is no appealable

order for this court to review, we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. See

Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a), 43.2(f); Ramirez v. State, 318 S.W.3d 906, 908 (Tex.

App.—Waco 2010, no pet.) (dismissing appeal from a withdrawal notification

after finding there was no appealable order).

LEE GABRIEL JUSTICE

PANEL: LIVINGSTON, C.J.; McCOY and GABRIEL, JJ.

DELIVERED: November 3, 2011

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

Related

Palomo v. State
330 S.W.3d 920 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2010)
Palomo v. State
322 S.W.3d 304 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2010)
Ramirez v. State
318 S.W.3d 906 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2010)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Billy Ray Davis v. State, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/billy-ray-davis-v-state-texapp-2011.