Kevin Luman v. State

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedJuly 26, 2006
Docket12-06-00167-CR
StatusPublished

This text of Kevin Luman v. State (Kevin Luman 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
Kevin Luman v. State, (Tex. Ct. App. 2006).

Opinion

lee, elmer edward v. state

                                                NO. 12-06-00167-CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

KEVIN LUMAN,       §                      APPEAL FROM THE 217TH

APPELLANT

V.        §                      JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

APPELLEE   §                      ANGELINA COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORANDUM OPINION

PER CURIAM

            This appeal is being dismissed for want of jurisdiction.  Appellant was convicted of possession of a controlled substance, methamphetamine, and punishment was assessed at imprisonment for ten years.  Thereafter, Appellant filed a notice of appeal.  To be sufficient to invoke the appellate court’s full jurisdiction, the notice of appeal filed by an appellant in a criminal case must bear the trial court’s certification of the appellant’s right to appeal. Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(d). The certification should be part of the record when notice is filed, but may be added by timely amendment or supplementation.  Id.  Appellant’s notice of appeal does not include the required certification.

            On June 19, 2006, this court notified Appellant through his counsel, pursuant to Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure 25.2 and 37.2, that the notice of appeal does not include the trial court certification.  The notice also informed Appellant that the appeal would be dismissed unless on or before July 19, 2006, the clerk’s record was amended to include the required certification.  See Tex. R. App. P. 44.3.


     The deadline for responding to this court’s notice has expired, and the clerk’s record has not been amended to show Appellant’s right to appeal.  Therefore, the appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

Opinion delivered July 26, 2006.

Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J. and Griffith, J.

(DO NOT PUBLISH)`

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Kevin Luman v. State, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kevin-luman-v-state-texapp-2006.