Michael Clifford Singleton v. the State of Texas

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedJune 26, 2025
Docket02-25-00160-CR
StatusPublished

This text of Michael Clifford Singleton v. the State of Texas (Michael Clifford Singleton v. the State of Texas) 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
Michael Clifford Singleton v. the State of Texas, (Tex. Ct. App. 2025).

Opinion

In the Court of Appeals Second Appellate District of Texas at Fort Worth ___________________________

No. 02-25-00160-CR ___________________________

MICHAEL CLIFFORD SINGLETON, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

On Appeal from County Criminal Court No. 10 Tarrant County, Texas Trial Court No. 1831930

Before Sudderth, C.J.; Kerr and Birdwell, JJ. Memorandum Opinion by Chief justice Sudderth MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant Michael Clifford Singleton attempts to appeal from an order granting

his plea in bar, i.e., an order that bars his prosecution for the underlying misdemeanor

offense. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 12.45 (barring prosecution of offense when

defendant—with the State’s agreement—admits guilt and requests that court consider

his guilt in assessing his sentence for another offense); Hilburn v. State, 946 S.W.2d

885, 886 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1997, no pet.) (per curiam) (explaining that, “[i]f an

unadjudicated offense is admitted before the trial court, and the court agrees to a

defendant’s request to take that offense into account when assessing punishment for

some other offense(s), [then] the defendant is granted a plea in bar, and there can be

no prosecution for the unadjudicated offense”). But “we do not have jurisdiction to

hear a purported appeal from a judgment granting a plea in bar.” Hilburn, 946 S.W.2d

at 886; see Graham-O’Dell v. State, No. 02-23-00264-CR, 2023 WL 7210161, at *1 (Tex.

App.—Fort Worth Nov. 2, 2023, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication);

Courtney v. State, Nos. 02-22-00161-CR, 02-22-00162-CR, 2022 WL 17494604, at *1

(Tex. App.—Fort Worth Dec. 8, 2022, no pet.) (per curiam) (mem. op., not

designated for publication).

Given this jurisdictional flaw, we sent Singleton a letter warning that we could

dismiss his appeal unless, within ten days, he showed grounds for continuing it. See

Tex. R. App. P. 44.3. More than ten days have passed, and we have not received a

response.

2 Therefore, we dismiss Singleton’s appeal for want of jurisdiction. See Tex. R.

App. P. 43.2(f); Graham-O’Dell, 2023 WL 7210161, at *1; Courtney, 2022 WL 17494604,

at *1; Hilburn, 946 S.W.2d at 886.

/s/ Bonnie Sudderth

Bonnie Sudderth Chief Justice

Do Not Publish Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)

Delivered: June 26, 2025

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

Related

Hilburn v. State
946 S.W.2d 885 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1997)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Michael Clifford Singleton v. the State of Texas, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/michael-clifford-singleton-v-the-state-of-texas-texapp-2025.