Fred Arthur Jella v. State of Texas

Court of Appeals of Texas

Fred Arthur Jella v. State of Texas

DecidedMarch 8, 2002

Docket07-00-00528-CR

StatusPublished

This text of Fred Arthur Jella v. State of Texas (Fred Arthur Jella v. State of Texas) 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

Fred Arthur Jella v. State of Texas, (Tex. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

NO. 07-00-0528-CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT AMARILLO

PANEL A

MARCH 8, 2002

______________________________

FRED ARTHUR JELLA, APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS , APPELLEE

_________________________________

FROM THE 47^TH DISTRICT COURT OF POTTER COUNTY;

NO. 40132-A; HONORABLE DAVID L. GLEASON, JUDGE

_______________________________

Before BOYD, C.J., and REAVIS and JOHNSON, JJ.

ON MOTION FOR STAY OF MANDATE

Appellant Fred Arthur Jella has filed a pro se motion for stay of our mandate in which we affirmed an order of the trial court revoking his probation. He argues that he is having eye surgery and needs additional time "to prepare and file motions in The United States Supreme Court of Appeals."

Appellant has filed this motion pursuant to Rule 67.2 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. That rule applies to proceedings before the Court of Criminal Appeals and the purpose is to provide the Court of Criminal Appeals with enough time to decide whether to grant discretionary review on its own initiative. Under the rule, the Court of Criminal Appeals files with the clerk of the court of appeals an order staying the court of appeals' mandate. Tex. R. App. P. 67.2. There is no provision under that rule for appellant to apply directly to the court of appeals for stay of the mandate.

Further, our records show that appellant filed a pro se petition for discretionary review with the Court of Criminal Appeals, which was refused. He also filed a motion for rehearing, which was untimely. Therefore, the cited rule does not provide us with any authority to act on appellant's request.

Accordingly, the motion is overruled.

John T. Boyd

Chief Justice

Do not publish.

Supp. 2006).

Accordingly, appellant’s contention is without merit and the motion for rehearing is denied.

Mackey K. Hancock

Justice

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

NO. 07-00-0528-CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT AMARILLO

PANEL A

MARCH 8, 2002

______________________________

FRED ARTHUR JELLA, APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS , APPELLEE

_________________________________

FROM THE 47^TH DISTRICT COURT OF POTTER COUNTY;

NO. 40132-A; HONORABLE DAVID L. GLEASON, JUDGE

_______________________________

Before BOYD, C.J., and REAVIS and JOHNSON, JJ.

ON MOTION FOR STAY OF MANDATE

Appellant Fred Arthur Jella has filed a pro se motion for stay of our mandate in which we affirmed an order of the trial court revoking his probation. He argues that he is having eye surgery and needs additional time "to prepare and file motions in The United States Supreme Court of Appeals."

Appellant has filed this motion pursuant to Rule 67.2 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. That rule applies to proceedings before the Court of Criminal Appeals and the purpose is to provide the Court of Criminal Appeals with enough time to decide whether to grant discretionary review on its own initiative. Under the rule, the Court of Criminal Appeals files with the clerk of the court of appeals an order staying the court of appeals' mandate. Tex. R. App. P. 67.2. There is no provision under that rule for appellant to apply directly to the court of appeals for stay of the mandate.

Further, our records show that appellant filed a pro se petition for discretionary review with the Court of Criminal Appeals, which was refused. He also filed a motion for rehearing, which was untimely. Therefore, the cited rule does not provide us with any authority to act on appellant's request.

Accordingly, the motion is overruled.

John T. Boyd

Chief Justice

Do not publish.

Supp. 2006).

Accordingly, appellant’s contention is without merit and the motion for rehearing is denied.

Mackey K. Hancock

Justice

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Fred Arthur Jella v. State of Texas, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fred-arthur-jella-v-state-of-texas-texapp-2002.