Ex Parte Micheal Gerod McGregor v. State

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedApril 30, 2015
Docket05-14-01261-CV
StatusPublished

This text of Ex Parte Micheal Gerod McGregor v. State (Ex Parte Micheal Gerod McGregor 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
Ex Parte Micheal Gerod McGregor v. State, (Tex. Ct. App. 2015).

Opinion

Order entered April 30, 2015

In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-14-01261-CV

EX PARTE MICHAEL GEROD MCGREGOR, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 363rd Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. X-13-1459-W

ORDER The record before us reflects this appeal could be either (1) an ordinary appeal, filed

within the fifteen-day extension period provided by Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 26.3 but

without the required extension motion; or (2) a restricted appeal under Texas Rule of Appellate

Procedure 30 but with a deficient notice of appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 25.1(d)(7) & 30 (together

setting forth requirements for restricted appeal); 26.1 (setting deadline for filing ordinary

appeal); 26.3 (outlining procedure for obtaining extension). Accordingly, by letter dated April 1,

2015, appellant was directed to file either (1) a motion to extend time to file notice of ordinary

appeal or (2) an amended notice of appeal reflecting he is pursuing a restricted appeal. Rather

than filing either an extension motion or an amended notice of appeal, however, appellant, who

is proceeding pro se, has filed both. He also has filed a “motion for leave to file [both].” An appeal cannot proceed as both an ordinary appeal and a restricted appeal. See

generally id. 25.1, 26.1, 30. Because the standard of appellate review in a restricted appeal is

more limited than the standard in an ordinary appeal, we GRANT the motion to permit late

filing of notice of ordinary appeal and DENY as moot the other filings. See TEX. R. APP. P. 26.3;

Champion v. Estlow, 2015 WL 513274, 03-14-00016-CV *1 (Tex. App.-–Austin 2015, pet.

filed); Davenport v. Scheble, 201 S.W.3d 188, 193 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2006, pet. denied). We

deem the notice of appeal filed June 7, 2014 timely for jurisdictional purposes.

We note the clerk’s record has been filed. We further note the reporter has informed the

Court that no reporter’s record exists of the trial court proceedings. Accordingly, we ORDER

appellant to file his brief on the merits no later than June 1, 2015. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.6.

/s/ CRAIG STODDART JUSTICE

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

Related

Davenport v. Scheble
201 S.W.3d 188 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2006)
William Cullen Champion v. Marilyn Estlow
456 S.W.3d 363 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2015)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Ex Parte Micheal Gerod McGregor v. State, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ex-parte-micheal-gerod-mcgregor-v-state-texapp-2015.