Ex Parte Rajat Kumar v. the State of Texas

CourtTexas Court of Appeals, 2nd District (Fort Worth)
DecidedJune 4, 2026
Docket02-26-00091-CR
StatusPublished

This text of Ex Parte Rajat Kumar v. the State of Texas (Ex Parte Rajat Kumar v. the State of Texas) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Texas Court of Appeals, 2nd District (Fort Worth) primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Ex Parte Rajat Kumar v. the State of Texas, (Tex. Ct. App. 2026).

Opinion

In the Court of Appeals Second Appellate District of Texas at Fort Worth ___________________________

No. 02-26-00091-CR ___________________________

EX PARTE RAJAT KUMAR

On Appeal from Criminal District Court No. 4 Tarrant County, Texas Trial Court No. 1908320

Before Wallach, J.; Sudderth, C.J.; and Walker, J. Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion MEMORANDUM OPINION

On March 19, 2026, we notified Appellant of our concern that we lacked

jurisdiction over this appeal because the trial court had not signed any written order

on his application for habeas relief. See State v. Wachtendorf, 475 S.W.3d 895, 904 (Tex.

Crim. App. 2015); Ex parte Wiley, 949 S.W.2d 3, 4 (Tex. App.––Fort Worth Dec. 5,

1996, no pet.); see also Ex parte Salim, Nos. 02-19-00009-CR, 02-19-00010-CR,

2019 WL 490516, at *1 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Feb. 7, 2019, no pet.) (mem. op., not

designated for publication). We notified him that unless he or another party filed a

response showing grounds for continuing the appeal, we could dismiss it for want of

jurisdiction.

In response, Appellant submitted a certificate of proceedings from the trial

court. However, “this court has previously rejected urgings to treat certificates of

proceedings as appealable orders.” Shields v. State, Nos. 02-21-00022-CR,

02-21-00023-CR, 02-21-00024-CR, 02-21-00025-CR, 02-21-00026-CR,

02-21-00027-CR, 02-21-00043-CR, 2021 WL 2460858, at *1 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth

June 17, 2021, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (citing cases). We

notified Appellant that we remained concerned that this court lacked jurisdiction over

his appeal, and we cautioned him that we could dismiss the appeal unless he or

another party filed a response by April 17, 2026, showing grounds to continue the

appeal. We have not received a response.

2 Because Appellant has not filed a response showing that the trial court has

signed an appealable written order or otherwise showing grounds for continuing the

appeal, we dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction. See Shields, 2021 WL 2460858, at

*1; Wiley, 949 S.W.2d at 4.

Per Curiam

Do Not Publish Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)

Delivered: June 4, 2026

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

Related

Ex Parte Wiley
949 S.W.2d 3 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1996)
Wachtendorf, John Allen Jr.
475 S.W.3d 895 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 2015)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Ex Parte Rajat Kumar v. the State of Texas, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ex-parte-rajat-kumar-v-the-state-of-texas-txctapp2-2026.