David T. Martineau, D/B/A Hop-Mar Energy, L. P. v. George Lloyd, Randall W. Lloyd and Justin Lloyd
This text of David T. Martineau, D/B/A Hop-Mar Energy, L. P. v. George Lloyd, Randall W. Lloyd and Justin Lloyd (David T. Martineau, D/B/A Hop-Mar Energy, L. P. v. George Lloyd, Randall W. Lloyd and Justin Lloyd) 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
|
|
In The
Court of Appeals
Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana
______________________________
No. 06-10-00065-CV
DAVID T. MARTINEAU, D/B/A HOP-MAR ENERGY, L.P., Appellant
V.
GEORGE LLOYD, RANDALL W. LLOYD, AND JUSTIN LLOYD, Appellees
On Appeal from the 188th Judicial District Court
Gregg County, Texas
Trial Court No. 2008-2337-A
Before Morriss, C.J., Carter and Moseley, JJ.
Memorandum Opinion by Justice Carter
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant, David T. Martineau, d/b/a Hop-Mar Energy, L.P., and Appellees, George Lloyd, Randall W. Lloyd, and Justin Lloyd, have filed with this Court a joint motion to dismiss the pending appeal in this matter and remand the cause to the trial court. The parties represent to this Court they have reached a full and final settlement. In such a case, no real controversy exists, and in the absence of a controversy, the appeal is moot.
We grant the motion. We set aside, without regard to the merits, the judgment of the trial court and remand the case to the trial court for rendition of judgment in accordance with the agreement. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(a)(2)(B).
Jack Carter
Justice
Date Submitted: April 11, 2011
Date Decided: April 12, 2011
han'>Date Submitted: December 14, 2010
Date Decided: December 15, 2010
Do Not Publish
OPINION ON REHEARING
In the above-captioned case, we affirmed Calvin Wayne Burnham’s conviction of four counts of aggravated sexual assault and four counts of indecency with a child, his stepdaughter. Burnham has filed a single motion for rehearing in all of his cases asking that this Court rehear the matter.[2] Specifically, he alleges that the State violated Article 42.12, Section 21(b) of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure in amending its motion to adjudicate guilt “after the commencement of taking evidence at the hearing.” Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 42.12, § 21(b) (Vernon Supp. 2010).
We addressed these issues in detail in our opinion on rehearing of this date on Burnham’s appeal in cause number 06-10-00038-CR. For the reasons stated therein, we likewise conclude that Burnham’s complaint on rehearing was not preserved for our review.
We deny the motion for rehearing.
Date: January 26, 2011
[1]Burnham appeals from four convictions of aggravated sexual assault of a child and four convictions of indecency with a child, cause numbers 06-10-00038-CR through 06-10-00045-CR.
[2]Burnham seeks rehearing of our opinions affirming four convictions of aggravated sexual assault of a child and four convictions of indecency with a child, cause numbers 06-10-00038-CR through 06-10-00045-CR.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
David T. Martineau, D/B/A Hop-Mar Energy, L. P. v. George Lloyd, Randall W. Lloyd and Justin Lloyd, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/david-t-martineau-dba-hop-mar-energy-l-p-v-george--texapp-2011.