Douglas Fonteno v. George Thomas Bailey
This text of Douglas Fonteno v. George Thomas Bailey (Douglas Fonteno v. George Thomas Bailey) 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
Douglas Fonteno has filed an appeal. The trial court entered an order finding that he was not indigent, thus requiring him to be responsible for the cost of obtaining a record for appeal. The clerk's record was due on July 16, 2003. It has not been filed, and no request for preparation has been made. Fonteno has thus not taken the necessary steps to obtain and file a clerk's record in this case. See Tex. R. App. P. 34.5, 35.3(a).
On August 12, 2003, we sent a letter to Fonteno warning him that, if he did not cure this defect within ten days of the date of our letter, the appeal would be subject to dismissal for want of prosecution. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(b), (c).
Fonteno has not responded. No record has been filed, and he has not made this Court aware of any effort to have one prepared.
The appeal is dismissed for want of prosecution.
Jack Carter
Justice
Date Submitted: September 5, 2003
Date Decided: September 8, 2003
cked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 7"/>
|
|
In The
Court of Appeals
Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana
No. 06-10-00084-CR
WILLIAM ALLEN COOPER, Appellant
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 102nd Judicial District Court
Red River County, Texas
Trial Court No. CR01520
Before Morriss, C.J., Carter and Moseley, JJ.
Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Morriss
William Allen Cooper appeals from his conviction by a jury for improper photography or visual recording. He was sentenced to two years in state jail and a $10,000.00 fine.
Cooper was tried on two counts in a single proceeding and is facing two convictions, resulting in two separate appeals. A common brief was filed raising the same issues in both cases.
Cooper raises several issues, including a Batson[1] claim, issues about the unsupported assessment of costs, issues concerning harm caused by improperly admitted evidence and an improper opening statement by the State, and the sufficiency of the evidence to support his conviction. Because the evidentiary contention disposes of the appeal, we need not address the remaining issues.
We addressed the sufficiency of the evidence to support the conviction in detail in our opinion of this date on Coopers appeal in cause number 06-10-00083-CR. For the reasons stated therein, we likewise conclude that the evidence is insufficient to support this conviction.
We reverse the conviction and render a judgment of acquittal.
Josh R. Morriss, III
Chief Justice
Date Submitted: October 20, 2010
Date Decided: November 16, 2010
Do Not Publish
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Douglas Fonteno v. George Thomas Bailey, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/douglas-fonteno-v-george-thomas-bailey-texapp-2003.