Gordon N. Ridley v. State
This text of Gordon N. Ridley v. State (Gordon N. Ridley 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.
Opinion
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN
JUDGMENT RENDERED DECEMBER 21, 2018
NO. 03-18-00791-CR
Gordon N. Ridley, Appellant
v.
The State of Texas, Appellee
APPEAL FROM THE 264TH DISTRICT COURT OF BELL COUNTY BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE ROSE, JUSTICES FIELD AND TOTH DISMISSED FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION—OPINION BY CHIEF JUSTICE ROSE
This is an appeal from the judgment of conviction entered by the district court. Having reviewed
the record, it appears that the Court lacks jurisdiction over this appeal. Therefore, the Court
dismisses the appeal for want of jurisdiction. Because appellant is indigent and unable to pay
costs, no adjudication of costs is made. TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN
NO. 03-18-00792-CR
APPEAL FROM THE 264TH DISTRICT COURT OF BELL COUNTY BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE ROSE, JUSTICES FIELD AND TOTH DISMISSED FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION—OPINION BY CHIEF JUSTICE ROSE
This is an appeal from the judgment of conviction entered by the district court. Having reviewed
the record, it appears that the Court lacks jurisdiction over this appeal. Therefore, the Court
dismisses the appeal for want of jurisdiction. Because appellant is indigent and unable to pay
costs, no adjudication of costs is made. TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN
NO. 03-18-00793-CR
APPEAL FROM THE 264TH DISTRICT COURT OF BELL COUNTY BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE ROSE, JUSTICES FIELD AND TOTH DISMISSED FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION—OPINION BY CHIEF JUSTICE ROSE
This is an appeal from the judgment of conviction entered by the district court. Having reviewed
the record, it appears that the Court lacks jurisdiction over this appeal. Therefore, the Court
dismisses the appeal for want of jurisdiction. Because appellant is indigent and unable to pay
costs, no adjudication of costs is made. TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN
NO. 03-18-00794-CR
APPEAL FROM THE 264TH DISTRICT COURT OF BELL COUNTY BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE ROSE, JUSTICES FIELD AND TOTH DISMISSED FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION—OPINION BY CHIEF JUSTICE ROSE
This is an appeal from the judgment of conviction entered by the district court. Having reviewed
the record, it appears that the Court lacks jurisdiction over this appeal. Therefore, the Court
dismisses the appeal for want of jurisdiction. Because appellant is indigent and unable to pay
costs, no adjudication of costs is made.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Gordon N. Ridley v. State, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gordon-n-ridley-v-state-texapp-2018.