Kathy Marie Jimenez-Black v. State

Court of Appeals of Texas

Kathy Marie Jimenez-Black v. State

Court of Appeals of Texas·Decided October 2, 2014·No. 01-14-00411-CR·Published

Opinion

COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER ON MOTION

Cause number: 01-14-00410-CR, 01-14-00411-CR Style: Kathy Jimenez-Black v. The State of Texas Date motion filed*: September 11, 2014 Type of motion: Motion for Immediate Mandate Party filing motion: Appellant Document to be filed: Mandate

Is appeal accelerated? No

Ordered that motion is:  Granted If document is to be filed, document due:  Denied  Dismissed (e.g., want of jurisdiction, moot)  Other: _____________________________________ Because appellant’s motion for immediate mandate failed to include a certificate of conference or to show good cause for expediting the mandate that was scheduled to issue on September 26, 2014, this Court could not grant the motion immediately. See TEX. R. APP. P. 10.3(a)(2), 18.1(c). Accordingly, because the mandate issued on September 26, 2014, appellant’s motion is dismissed as moot.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Laura C. Higley 

Panel consists of ____________________________________________

Date: October 2, 2014

November 7, 2008 Revision

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

COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER ON MOTION

Cause number: 01-14-00410-CR, 01-14-00411-CR Style: Kathy Jimenez-Black v. The State of Texas Date motion filed*: September 11, 2014 Type of motion: Motion for Immediate Mandate Party filing motion: Appellant Document to be filed: Mandate

Is appeal accelerated? No

Ordered that motion is:  Granted If document is to be filed, document due:  Denied  Dismissed (e.g., want of jurisdiction, moot)  Other: _____________________________________ Because appellant’s motion for immediate mandate failed to include a certificate of conference or to show good cause for expediting the mandate that was scheduled to issue on September 26, 2014, this Court could not grant the motion immediately. See TEX. R. APP. P. 10.3(a)(2), 18.1(c). Accordingly, because the mandate issued on September 26, 2014, appellant’s motion is dismissed as moot.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Laura C. Higley 

Panel consists of ____________________________________________

Date: October 2, 2014

November 7, 2008 Revision

Kathy Marie Jimenez-Black v. State, (Tex. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

Kathy Marie Jimenez-Black v. State (Kathy Marie Jimenez-Black v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.