Emerson Sanatio Evans v. State

Court of Appeals of Texas

Emerson Sanatio Evans v. State

DecidedApril 25, 2002

Docket12-02-00079-CR

StatusPublished

This text of Emerson Sanatio Evans v. State (Emerson Sanatio Evans 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

Emerson Sanatio Evans v. State, (Tex. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

NO. 12-02-00079-CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

EMERSON SANATIO EVANS,

§ APPEAL FROM THE 145TH

APPELLANT

V.

§ JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

APPELLEE

§ NACOGDOCHES COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORANDUM OPINION⁽¹⁾

This appeal is being dismissed for want of jurisdiction because Appellant has failed, after notice, to supplement the clerk's record with an appealable order. Rule 26.1 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure 26.2(a)(2) provides that where, as here, a motion for new trial is not filed, a notice of appeal must be filed within thirty days after the sentence is imposed or suspended in open court, or after the day trial court enters an appealable order. Tex. R. App. P. 26.2(a)(2). Appellant appeals from the trial court's order amending terms and conditions of his probation. In its order, the trial court required Appellant to serve three months in an Intermediate Sanction Facility.

The courts of appeals are required to determine their own jurisdiction in every case. Ex parte Lewis, 663 S.W.2d 153, 154 (Tex. App.- Amarillo 1983, no pet.). We have been unable to locate any authority permitting an appeal from an order amending the terms and conditions of probation, including one that requires a defendant to serve time in an Intermediate Sanction Facility. Thus, on March 18, 2002, pursuant to Tex. R. App. P. 37.2 and 44.3, Appellant was notified that the information received by the court did not contain an appealable order and given until April 1, 2002 to supplement the information showing the jurisdiction of the court. Appellant was further notified that his failure to timely supplement the information would result in the dismissal of this appeal.

As of April 18, 2002, Appellant has neither supplemented the record nor otherwise adequately responded to this court's notice. Because no order demonstrating that Appellant has properly invoked this court's jurisdiction is contained in the information provided to this court, we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 26.2, 42.3, and 44.3.

Per Curiam

Delivered April 25, 2002.

Panel consisted of Davis, C.J., Worthen, J., and Griffith, J.

(DO NOT PUBLISH)

1. See Tex. R. App. P. 47.1

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

NO. 12-02-00079-CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

EMERSON SANATIO EVANS,

§ APPEAL FROM THE 145TH

APPELLANT

V.

§ JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

APPELLEE

§ NACOGDOCHES COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORANDUM OPINION⁽¹⁾

This appeal is being dismissed for want of jurisdiction because Appellant has failed, after notice, to supplement the clerk's record with an appealable order. Rule 26.1 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure 26.2(a)(2) provides that where, as here, a motion for new trial is not filed, a notice of appeal must be filed within thirty days after the sentence is imposed or suspended in open court, or after the day trial court enters an appealable order. Tex. R. App. P. 26.2(a)(2). Appellant appeals from the trial court's order amending terms and conditions of his probation. In its order, the trial court required Appellant to serve three months in an Intermediate Sanction Facility.

The courts of appeals are required to determine their own jurisdiction in every case. Ex parte Lewis, 663 S.W.2d 153, 154 (Tex. App.- Amarillo 1983, no pet.). We have been unable to locate any authority permitting an appeal from an order amending the terms and conditions of probation, including one that requires a defendant to serve time in an Intermediate Sanction Facility. Thus, on March 18, 2002, pursuant to Tex. R. App. P. 37.2 and 44.3, Appellant was notified that the information received by the court did not contain an appealable order and given until April 1, 2002 to supplement the information showing the jurisdiction of the court. Appellant was further notified that his failure to timely supplement the information would result in the dismissal of this appeal.

As of April 18, 2002, Appellant has neither supplemented the record nor otherwise adequately responded to this court's notice. Because no order demonstrating that Appellant has properly invoked this court's jurisdiction is contained in the information provided to this court, we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 26.2, 42.3, and 44.3.

Per Curiam

Delivered April 25, 2002.

Panel consisted of Davis, C.J., Worthen, J., and Griffith, J.

(DO NOT PUBLISH)

1. See Tex. R. App. P. 47.1

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Emerson Sanatio Evans v. State, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/emerson-sanatio-evans-v-state-texapp-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack