Camil Kreit, M.D. and Samir Kreit, M.D. v. Charlotte Foreman

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedNovember 7, 2003
Docket07-03-00446-CV
StatusPublished

This text of Camil Kreit, M.D. and Samir Kreit, M.D. v. Charlotte Foreman (Camil Kreit, M.D. and Samir Kreit, M.D. v. Charlotte Foreman) 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
Camil Kreit, M.D. and Samir Kreit, M.D. v. Charlotte Foreman, (Tex. Ct. App. 2003).

Opinion

NO. 07-03-0446-CV


IN THE COURT OF APPEALS


FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS


AT AMARILLO


PANEL A


NOVEMBER 7, 2003



______________________________


CAMIL KREIT, M.D. AND SAMIR KREIT, M.D., APPELLANTS


V.


CHARLOTTE FOREMAN, APPELLEE


_________________________________


FROM THE 253RD DISTRICT COURT OF LIBERTY COUNTY;


NO. 56,121; HONORABLE CHAP B. CAIN, III, JUDGE


_______________________________


Before JOHNSON, C.J., and REAVIS and CAMPBELL, JJ.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Pursuant to appellants' Unopposed Motion to Dismiss for Want of Jurisdiction based on the trial court's order vacating the final judgment from which this appeal was perfected, the appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

Without passing on the merits of the case, the appellant's unopposed motion for dismissal is granted and the appeal is hereby dismissed. Tex. R. App. P. 42.1. All costs having been paid, no order pertaining to the costs is made. Having dismissed the appeal at the appellant's request, no motion for rehearing will be entertained and our mandate will issue forthwith.



Phil Johnson

Chief Justice



ial', sans-serif">FROM THE 108TH DISTRICT COURT OF POTTER COUNTY;


NO. 53,792-E; HONORABLE ABE LOPEZ, JUDGE

_______________________________



Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and HANCOCK, JJ.

ON ABATEMENT AND REMAND

          Appellant, Andy DeWayne Posey, appeals his conviction for possession of a controlled substance in a drug free zone, enhanced, and sentence of 40 years incarceration in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. On April 11, 2008, the clerk’s record was filed in this cause.

          The clerk’s record does not contain a certification by the trial court of appellant’s right of appeal under Texas Rule of Appellant Procedure 25.2(d). Rule 25 requires the trial court to enter such a certification “each time it enters a judgment of guilt or other appealable order.” Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(a)(2).

          Consequently, we abate this appeal and remand the cause to the trial court for further proceedings. On remand, the trial court shall utilize whatever means necessary to secure a Certification of Defendant’s Right of Appeal in compliance with Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 25.2(d), regarding appellant’s appeal of the trial court’s judgment. Once executed, the certification shall be included in a supplemental clerk’s record and filed with this Court on or before May 28, 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

Bluebook (online)
Camil Kreit, M.D. and Samir Kreit, M.D. v. Charlotte Foreman, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/camil-kreit-md-and-samir-kreit-md-v-charlotte-fore-texapp-2003.