Ex Parte Jeremy R. Minnitt

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedNovember 21, 2013
Docket10-13-00125-CR
StatusPublished

This text of Ex Parte Jeremy R. Minnitt (Ex Parte Jeremy R. Minnitt) 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
Ex Parte Jeremy R. Minnitt, (Tex. Ct. App. 2013).

Opinion

IN THE TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-13-00125-CR No. 10-13-00126-CR

EX PARTE JEREMY R. MINNITT

From the 19th District Court McLennan County, Texas Trial Court Nos. 2013-356-C1 and 2013-357-C1

MEMORANDUM OPINION

In appellate cause numbers 10-13-00125-CR and 10-13-00126-CR, appellant,

Jeremy R. Minnitt, filed pro se notices of appeal indicating that he wished to appeal

from the trial court’s purported denial of his applications for “writ of habeas corpus

seeking bail reduction.” In both cases, we have received the Clerk’s Record, which

contains appellant’s pro se habeas-corpus applications, his pro se notices of appeal, and

a letter sent from this Court regarding appellant’s filing of his pro se notices of appeal.

The Clerk’s Record does not contain a copy of the trial court’s purported denial of

appellant’s habeas-corpus applications. Because the record does not contain an appealable order or a certification of

appellant’s right of appeal in either case, we notified appellant that these cases were

subject to dismissal for want of jurisdiction. We also informed appellant that these

cases would be dismissed unless, within twenty-one days from September 4, 2013, he

filed a response showing grounds for continuing these appeals. Since the filing of his

pro se notices of appeal, appellant has had no contact with this Court.

Our review of the limited record reveals that appellant has completely failed in

his duty to prosecute these appeals, to contact the Court, and to take any further action

towards prosecuting these appeals. Accordingly, we conclude that appellant does not

desire to prosecute these appeals. As such, we dismiss these appeals, under our

inherent authority, for want of prosecution. See TEX. R. APP. P. 44.3; Ealy v. State, 222

S.W.3d 744, 745 (Tex. App.—Waco 2007, no pet.) (citing Peralta v. State, 82 S.W.3d 724,

725-26 (Tex. App.—Waco 2002, no pet.)); see also Evans v. State, No. 10-09-00251-CR, 2010

Tex. App. LEXIS 546, at *3 (Tex. App.—Waco Jan. 27, 2010, no pet.) (mem. op., not

designated for publication).

AL SCOGGINS Justice

Ex parte Minnitt Page 2 Before Chief Justice Gray, Justice Davis, and Justice Scoggins Appeals Dismissed Opinion delivered and filed November 21, 2013 Do not publish [CR25]

Ex parte Minnitt Page 3

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

Related

Peralta v. State
82 S.W.3d 724 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2002)
Ealy v. State
222 S.W.3d 744 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2007)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Ex Parte Jeremy R. Minnitt, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ex-parte-jeremy-r-minnitt-texapp-2013.