Delvin Busby v. State

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedJune 23, 2004
Docket06-04-00072-CR
StatusPublished

This text of Delvin Busby v. State (Delvin Busby 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
Delvin Busby v. State, (Tex. Ct. App. 2004).

Opinion



In The

Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana


______________________________


No. 06-04-00072-CR



DELVIN DEWAYNE BUSBY, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee




On Appeal from the 354th Judicial District Court

Hunt County, Texas

Trial Court No. 21,853





Before Morriss, C.J., Ross and Carter, JJ.

Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Morriss



MEMORANDUM OPINION


            Delvin Dewayne Busby has appealed from his retaliation conviction in Hunt County. Appeals from that county may be directed to either the Fifth Court of Appeals in Dallas or this Court. We filed the appeal here based on a docketing statement directed to this Court specifying we were to receive the appeal. We have now received the record, and the notice of appeal specifies appeal to the Fifth Court of Appeals in Dallas. We have contacted the clerk's office for the Fifth Court of Appeals and have been informed that notice of appeal was sent there.

            Therefore, the appeal was improvidently filed here. Accordingly, we direct the clerk of our Court to ship the clerk's record to the Fifth Court of Appeals in Dallas so the appeal may proceed there.

            We dismiss this appeal. 

                                                                                    Josh R. Morriss, III

                                                                                    Chief Justice


Date Submitted:          June 22, 2004

Date Decided:             June 23, 2004


Do Not Publish

n appellant has assistance of counsel, the court is entitled to look solely to the attorney and is not required to consider pro se motions. McKinny v. State, 76 S.W.3d 463, 478 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2002, no pet.); Ashcraft v. State, 900 S.W.2d 817, 831 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 1995, pet. ref'd, pet. dism'd [2 pets.]). The trial court did not violate a ministerial duty by declining to rule on the motions filed.

            We deny the petition for writ of mandamus.


Date Submitted:          April 28, 2004

Date Decided:             April 29, 2004

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

Related

Ashcraft v. State
900 S.W.2d 817 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1995)
McKinny v. State
76 S.W.3d 463 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2002)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Delvin Busby v. State, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/delvin-busby-v-state-texapp-2004.