Gary Dale Parr v. State

Court of Appeals of Texas

Gary Dale Parr v. State

DecidedMarch 7, 2005

Docket07-05-00044-CR

StatusPublished

This text of Gary Dale Parr v. State (Gary Dale Parr 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

Gary Dale Parr v. State, (Tex. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

NO. 07-05-0044-CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT AMARILLO

PANEL E

MARCH 7, 2005

______________________________

GARY DALE PARR, APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE

_________________________________

FROM THE 242ND DISTRICT COURT OF HALE COUNTY;

NO. B15513-0405; HONORABLE ED SELF, JUDGE

_______________________________

Before QUINN and REAVIS, JJ. and BOYD, S.J.⁽¹⁾

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Pending before this Court is appellant Gary Dale Parr's request to withdraw his notice of appeal by which he represents he no longer wishes to pursue this matter. The motion is personally signed by appellant as required by Rule 42.2(a) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. No decision of this Court having been delivered to date, the appeal is dismissed. No motion for rehearing will be entertained and our mandate will issue forthwith.⁽²⁾

Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

Don H. Reavis

Justice

Do not publish.

1. John T. Boyd, Chief Justice (Ret.), Seventh Court of Appeals, sitting by assignment.

2. Appellant asserts he is entitled to more time credit than indicated in the judgment; however, he indicates he will pursue the matter through the administrative process provided by law for such corrections.

Motion to Dismiss in which, Lee Y. Cockrell, Guardian of the Person and Estate of Alice B. Ingrum Gray, an Incapacitated Person, represents that pursuant to a settlement agreement, he no longer wishes to pursue this appeal. Cockrell also represents that all disputes between the parties have been settled and requests dismissal with prejudice.

Without passing on the merits of the case, pursuant to Rule 42.1(a)(1) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, we grant the motion and dismiss the appeal with prejudice. Having dismissed the appeal at Cockrell's request, no motion for rehearing will be entertained and our mandate will issue forthwith.

Patrick A. Pirtle

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