Kenneth Nash Neu v. State
This text of Kenneth Nash Neu v. State (Kenneth Nash Neu 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
COURT OF APPEALS SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH
NO. 02-12-00524-CR
Kenneth Nash Neu § From the 371st District Court
§ of Tarrant County (0491203D)
v. § December 6, 2012
§ Per Curiam
The State of Texas § (nfp)
JUDGMENT
This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that
the appeal should be dismissed. It is ordered that the appeal is dismissed for
want of jurisdiction.
SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
PER CURIAM COURT OF APPEALS SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH
KENNETH NASH NEU APPELLANT
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE
----------
FROM THE 371ST DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY
MEMORANDUM OPINION1
In 1993, Appellant Kenneth Nash Neu pleaded guilty to indecency with a
child, and the trial court sentenced him to thirty-five years’ incarceration.2 He
filed a notice of appeal in the trial court in October 2012, and the notice refers to
pending motions Appellant had filed in the trial court.
1 See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4. 2 Appellant also pleaded true to enhancement and habitual offender allegations.
2 On November 6, 2012, we notified Appellant of our concern that we lacked
jurisdiction over this appeal because the trial court has not entered any
appealable orders, and we informed Appellant that we would dismiss the appeal
for want of jurisdiction unless he or any party desiring to continue the appeal filed
a response showing grounds for continuing the appeal. Although Appellant filed
a response, it does not raise grounds for continuing this attempted direct appeal.3
Because we generally have jurisdiction to consider an appeal in a criminal
case only when there has been a judgment of conviction, and because the trial
court has not entered an appealable order, we dismiss the appeal for want of
jurisdiction. See McKown v. State, 915 S.W.2d 160, 161 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth
1996, no pet.).
PER CURIAM
PANEL: GARDNER, WALKER, and MCCOY, JJ.
DO NOT PUBLISH Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)
DELIVERED: December 6, 2012
3 To the extent that Appellant seeks to appeal the trial court’s alleged refusal to rule on the pending motions, he cannot do so via direct appeal.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Kenneth Nash Neu v. State, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kenneth-nash-neu-v-state-texapp-2012.